The British Guiana-Venezuela Border Dispute - Guyana News and ...

The British Guiana-Venezuela Border Dispute 

Reports From The New-York Times 

(1887-1904) 

Compiled by: 

Ronald Ramdayal 

& 

Odeen Ishmael 

Editor: 

Odeen Ishmael

The British Guiana-Venezuela Border Dispute 

Reports From The New-York Times 

(1887-1904) 

Compiled by: 

Ronald Ramdayal 

& 

Odeen Ishmael 

Editor: 

Odeen Ishmael

Copyright Statement 

The copyright of the articles, reports and editorials 

in this collection is owned by The New York Times Company. 

Released by GNI Publications, 2010 

E-mail: GNI.publication@gmail.com 

This volume is published as a public service 

and is not to be sold. 

GNI Publications 

Georgetown Caracas Boston Toronto 

ii

Contents 

Introduction v 

Part 1. 1887 - 1892 1 

Part 2. January-November 1895 25 

Part 3. 1-18 December 1895 77 

Part 4. 19-20 December 1895 133 

Part 5. 21-23 December 1895 195 

Part 6. 24-25 December 1895 259 

Part 7. 26-31 December 1895 309 

Part 8. January 1896 351 

Part 9. February-April 1896 407 

Part 10. May-July 1896 467 

Part 11. August-December 1896 503 

Part 12. 1897 - 1898 539 

Part 13. 1899 - 1904 573 

iii

The British Guiana-Venezuela Border Dispute – Reports from The New-York Times (1887-1904) 

Introduction 

During the second half of the nineteenth century, a major dispute broke out between Venezuela 

and Great Britain over the location of the frontier between its colony of British Guiana* and the 

Spanish-speaking republic. A flurry of diplomatic exchanges over the territorial dispute took place 

between Venezuela and Great Britain and various proposals on finding a solution were presented by 

both sides, but no agreement was ever possible. Each side proposed boundary lines; Venezuela 

insisted that the boundary should be as far east as the Essequibo River while Great Britain, on 

behalf of British Guiana, claimed the entire Cuyuni basin and insisted that the colony’s boundary in 

the north-west should stretch as far as the mouth of the Orinoco River. 

With each side disagreeing with the other’s territorial claims, a diplomatic stalemate thus existed. 

But the situation took a new turn in the 1880s when the government of the United States of 

America decided to support the Venezuelan contention. At the start of the 1890s the United States 

became very vociferous in support of Venezuela and from 1895 it, almost in all respects, carried the 

diplomatic and political campaign with the British government on behalf of Venezuela. The 

American government demanded that the dispute involving the Venezuelan claim to all territory 

west of the Essequibo River should be settled by arbitration, but the British government refused to 

accept this proposal. However, the British government did agree to a limited form of arbitration 

with respect to the territory it claimed and occupied west of the “Schomburgk line”, drawn at a 

minimum distance of about one hundred miles west of the Essequibo River. This survey line was 

marked as the proposed boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela in 1840 by the Britishappointed 

surveyor, the German-born naturalist Robert Schomburgk. 

The American president, Grover Cleveland, himself became totally involved in the matter and in 

December 1895, in a special message to the US Congress, he issued an ultimatum to the British 

Government to agree to arbitrate the dispute. Cleveland, with the support of the Congress, even 

established a special boundary commission to investigate the issue and decide where the boundary 

between Venezuela and British Guiana should be drawn. 

In the United States, the border dispute spurred up much animosity against the British with 

some leading American politicians and newspapers, in support of the Venezuelan claim, openly 

advocating war against the British. The American army and navy were even placed in readiness in 

case of such an eventuality. 

However, with the British government in late 1896 finally agreeing to arbitration, the American 

commission was disbanded, but all its research materials were made available to the government of 

Venezuela which hired a team of American lawyers, including ex-US President Benjamin Harrison, 

to argue its case before the arbitral tribunal. The five-member tribunal, which met in Paris, also 

included two American judges who were chosen by the Venezuelan government. 

As could be expected, the American newspapers carried numerous reports of the American 

involvement in support of Venezuela in its territorial claims. The New-York Times, in particular, 

reported regularly on various aspects of the border dispute, and the majority of its reports and 

commentaries expressed support for the Venezuelan contention. In fact, the newspaper reflected the 

general view of the American government which throughout the decade of the 1890s rigidly backed 

the Venezuelan government. 

These reports were especially intensive during December 1895 and the early month of 1896 

when American involvement was at its height, and when anti-British emotions in the US were 

v

Introduction 

relatively strong. The meetings of the arbitral tribunal in Paris in 1899 and its final decision were also 

prominently featured by the newspaper. 

(More than six decades later when Venezuela reopened its claim based its allegation of nullity of 

the territorial award, that country carried the line that the award was biased and was based on a 

collusion between the Americans and British against Venezuelan interests. But these report, articles 

and editorials in this collection completely debunk that theory as they accurately captured the mood 

during the moment of the anti-British sentiments by the United States government and the vigour 

and almost warlike stand it took in support of Venezuela.) 

This volume presents a compilation of those reports by The New-York Times between 1887 and 

1904. The collection, culled from the online published archives of the newspaper, is presented in 

this volume in a chronological order. It should be noted that no reports on the dispute for the years 

1893 and 1894 could be located. 

Readers will observe variations in the spelling of important names in the reports. “Essequibo” 

and “Schomburgk”, for example, along with the names of many rivers and persons involved in this 

historical period, were presented in different spelling forms by the reporters of The New-York Times. 

These various spellings are reproduced in this collection as they appeared in the original news 

reports. And regarding the headlines, they are shown in this compilation as they appeared in the 

newspaper—totally upper case in some and lower case in others. 

It is interesting to note that up to the early years of the twentieth century, “New York” was a 

hyphenated name. Also, at the period of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the 

American spelling “system” had not yet dispensed totally with that of the British, and this was 

reflected clearly in the reports and articles in American newspapers, including The New-York Times. 

Finally, I must thank Mr. Ronald Ramdayal, a Guyanese petroleum engineer currently residing in 

England, for his collaboration in putting together this compilation. Mr. Ramdayal worked 

assiduously with me in gathering the reports, articles and editorials which, hopefully, will provide 

greater illumination to the history of Guyana during the period when the border dispute and the 

work of the arbitration tribunal grabbed the international spotlight in the closing decade of the 

nineteenth century. 

Odeen Ishmael 

Editor 

Caracas, October 2010 

* On 26 May 1966, British Guiana achieved political independence and was officially renamed Guyana, a name which was already being 

used by pro-government politicians since 1962. 

vi


- Part 1 - 

1887-1892 

1

1887 - 1892 

2


- 1 - 

SECRETARY BAYARD’S VIEW 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 16.—Secretary of State Bayard smiled to-night when he heard that a 

circumstantial account had been published of the intention of Great Britain to seize gold mining 

territory in Venezuela on the British Guiana border, and that Venezuela would call upon the United 

States to apply the Monroe doctrine. “Doesn’t that strike you as absurd?” was Mr. Bayard’s reply to 

a question about the truth of the story. “How can the United States apply the Monroe doctrine,” he 

added, “when three Governments were there before the United States were here? The trouble 

between Venezuela and Great Britain is of long standing, and so far as is known in the State 

Department here, there is nothing new in it. It is a dispute about the boundaries or Venezuela and 

British Guiana, and its settlement would be much more easily accomplished if President Guzman 

Blanco, who spends most of his time in Europe, had not seen fit to break off diplomatic relations 

with Great Britain. It is regarded here as not at all unlikely that some of the subjects of Great Britain 

have taken up land on the Venezuelan side of the disputed boundary line. The United States has 

been quietly using its good offices to promote peace and harmony between the disputing 

Governments, but it does not expect to apply the Monroe doctrine in the case nor to be drawn into 

any controversy over which timid people may be alarmed.” 

[17 February 1887] 

- 2 - 

SOUTH AMERICAN GOLD MINING 

From the Pall Mall Gazette, London 

The necessity for a prompt settlement of the boundary dispute with the republic of Venezuela is 

strikingly illustrated by a few items of intelligence we take almost at random from the British Guiana 

newspapers just to hand. One item tells of about 200 laborers and others—the laborers would be 

chiefly negroes—leaving Georgetown in one day for the gold mining districts in the tributaries of 

the Massaruni River. Another tells of a digger selling his placer claim to a private company in 

Georgetown for $30,000 – no less than 45 pounds of gold having been taken by him from this claim 

in one month. The district of the Puruni seems to be passing rich in mineral wealth. According to an 

expert examined by a commission appointed by the local Government to frame mining regulations, 

quartz abounds in “thousands of tons” in the Puruni creeks. In 1885 but 903 ounces of bullion were 

exported from the colony, whereas in 1886 the total export was over 6,500 ounces. The total for 

1887 promises to surpass that of 1886 as the total for that year excels that for 1885. That is, of 

course, if the home Government guarantees security to the enterprise now being shown by keeping 

Venezuela to her own domain 

[10 April 1887] 

3

1887 - 1892 

- 3 - 

ENGLAND AND THE GUIANA FRONTIER 

The Agencia Pumar, a Venezuelan news agency, thus summarizes the situation of affairs 

respecting the British Guiana frontier question with Venezuela: “The English have taken possession 

of all the territory up to Borua and Amacuro, thus depriving us of the exclusive dominion on the 

Orinoco River. The Venezuelan Government claimed this territory should be evacuated, but the 

British Minister claimed that this action of his Government was correct. Answer was made to him 

that this action violated the 1850 treaty, which stipulates that neither party would exercise 

jurisdiction beyond Pomar, and that if, prior to the meeting of the Boundary Commissioners, 

matters were not placed on the same footing on which they stood in 1850, friendly relations would 

be interrupted and Venezuela would protest. This was done on Feb. 21, but up to latest dates from 

Caracas the English Minister had not asked for his passport.” 

[17 April 1887] 

- 4 - 

FRANCE AND SPAIN OFFER TO MEDIATE 

The controversy between Venezuela and England over the frontier of British Guiana is not yet 

settled. The former insists that the recent English advance into the disputed territory violates the 

treaty of 1850, which stipulates that neither should go beyond Pomar. It is now said that France and 

Spain have offered to act as mediators, and that Italy and Belgium could also be relied upon for this 

purpose. It is fortunate that arbitrators can be so easily had, as the dispute is a very old one and by 

no means easy to settle. The English want all the region west of the Essequibo which is drained by 

its tributaries. There are several of these smaller streams between that river and the Orinoco, and 

British dominion would be carried far toward the latter. The boundary has never been determined1 

although it is nearly a century since the western part of Guiana passed from the hands of the Dutch 

into those of the English. 

[4 June 1887] 

- 5 - 

VENEZUELA’S BOUNDARY 

The application of the Monroe doctrine which Venezuela invokes, or at least suggests to the 

United States in her dispute with Great Britain, may not be entirely clear. The question at issue is not 

the acquisition of a foothold in the New World by a European power, but simply a dispute as to the 

proper boundary of territorial possessions which already exist. 

4


The controversy between Venezuela and British Guiana as to their mutual frontier is one that 

dates back through generations. It arose out of the fact that the Dutch established a colony 

something like three centuries ago in the region of the Essequibo River, which, two centuries later, 

was united to Demerara, and, after once being captured by the British and afterward restored, 

eventually passed into the permanent possession of Great Britain under the treaty of 1814. As the 

exact boundary claims of the Dutch against the Spanish were somewhat obscure, the difficulty 

naturally continued when Venezuela secured her independence, and the matter became the less likely 

to receive proper adjustment from the fact that after the republic of Colombia was formed by 

Venezuela, New Grenada, and Ecuador, these States again separated in 1831, and an almost 

constant state of political disorder subsisted in Venezuela for about thirty years. 

During that period a British authority had assumed to lay out the western boundary of British 

Guiana according to what he considered geographical principles by including in it the valley of the 

River Essequibo, and also the entire watershed of the affluents of that stream. While this boundary 

was said to consort with nature’s indications it also gratified the people of British Guiana, since it 

added to the latter an exceedingly large tract of land beyond what Venezuela considered to be the 

true boundary. Venezuela, however, went no further at that tine in practical opposition to this claim 

than pulling up the British landmarks. Her first definite effort to procure the settlement of the 

question was made about seventeen years ago, during the Presidency of Guzman Blanco, who, as 

was recently noted, gave up the few remaining months of his late Presidential term for the sake of 

going to Europe as a Commissioner with full powers to arrive at some settlement of the dispute. 

Once before, we believe, he went on a similar mission, and it appears to be rather doubtful whether 

he will achieve all the success he desires in the present undertaking. 

The serious character of the controversy arises, not only from the large amount of territory 

disputed, which is something like 40,000 square miles, but also and perhaps chiefly from the fact 

that of late years the settlers from British Guiana have pushed their way gradually, until now they 

will practically command, unless they should be driven out, a position at the mouth of the Orinoco 

itself. It can readily be understood why Venezuela is anxious to retain the control of this great 

waterway which furnishes the outlet for so much of her trade, and also communicates with the very 

heart of her dominions. She is made additionally anxious by the fact that her aggressive neighbor is a 

great maritime power with whose resources and capabilities of controlling and diverting trade she is 

not able to compete. On her part Great Britain fully appreciates the advantage of retaining such a 

foothold, while the country which she has, whether rightly or wrongly, overrun is valuable alike for 

its timber and its gold mines. Venezuela seems willing to submit the matter to arbitration, and Great 

Britain, having lately sounded the praises of this method of settling international disputes, apparently 

ought not to refuse such an arrangement. 

[26 September 1887] 

- 6 - 

SEIZED BY GREAT BRITAIN 

ANNEXING A PART OF VENEZUELAN TERRITORY 

A REGION RICH IN GOLD IS TAKEN—THE VENEZUELANS 

5

1887 - 1892 

ASKING THIS COUNTRY FOR PROTECTION 

The Consul of Venezuela at this port claims that England has made another grab of land in 

South America, and this time has annexed a large portion of Venezuelan territory said to be an 

exceedingly rich mining region, especially in respect to gold. This annexation, he says, virtually gives 

England control or the South American Continent tram the Caribbean Sea to Patagonia. The 

Venezuelans are not only urging the United States Government to interfere, on the ground that the 

stealing of territory by Great Britain is a violation of the Monroe doctrine, but a distinct menace to 

the commerce of the United States in South America. 

The territory seized by the British Government is what is known as the Yuruari region. Under 

the treaty of 1850, Great Britain owned 64,000 square miles of territory in tide region, the western 

boundary of which abutted on the vast mining section of Yuruari. It seems, however, that the British 

and German colonists were continually encroaching on the disputed territory, and the question of 

boundary has been under advisement for several years. In the Yuruari region are 14 mines, the 

average production of which is $3,000,000 a year. The British residents of Demerara had 

considerable interest in the mines and had put some money into the scheme. Then came a happy 

thought of annexing the country, and, accordingly, early in the present year, the Yuruari country was 

invaded by an armed force of British cavalry, and the following proclamation distributed: 

BRITISH GUIANA 

By his Excellency Charles Bruce, Esq. Companion of the Most Distinguished Order of St. Michael and St. 

George, Lieutenant-Governor and Commander-in-Chief in and over the Colony of British Guiana, Vice Admiral 

and ordinary of the same, etc. 

Whereas, it has come to the knowledge of the Government of British Guiana that certain concessions have 

been granted by the President, and by and with the sanction of the Government of the United States of Venezuela, 

purporting to give and grant certain rights and privileges for constructing a railway to Guacipati, and in and over 

certain territories and lands within and forming part of the colony of British Guiana, 

Now, therefore, I do hereby intimate to all whom it may concern hat no alleged rights purporting to be claimed 

under any such concession will be recognized within the said colony of British Guiana, and that till persons found 

trespassing on or occupying the lands of the colony without the authority of the Government of this colony will be 

dealt with as the law directs. 

Given under my hand and the public seal of the colony, Georgetown, Demerara, this 31st day of December, 

1887, and in the fifty-first year of her Majesty’s reign. God save the Queen! 

By his Excellency’s command, 

GEORGE MELVILLE 

Acting Government Secretary 

The Englishmen claim that it was necessary to settle once and for all this long-pending boundary 

question, and that in order that it should not again cause trouble, took the entire territory from the 

boundary of 1850, to the Orinoco River, including all the valuable mines. The seized district is 

computed to be about the size of the State of New-York. The English further claimed that the 

question of boundary had been in status quo for a period of nearly half a century, to the detriment 

of the colony, and to the retardment of the internal growth and development of British Guiana. 

They also made the statement that the Venezuelans had gradually extended their jurisdiction, mile by 

mile, to the south, until they actually trespassed on British territory, and that their motive for so 

doing was doubtless due to the large discoveries of gold in recent years. They allege that hardly 100 

of the residents south of the Yuruari are Venezuelans, but that on the contrary they are English and 

German, all desirous of a change of rule. The English have already taken steps for the formation of 

6


a road from Demerara to the mines in the Yuruari region. That the English and German element is 

much larger than the Venezuelan in the Yuruari region is quite true, so that the conquest of the 

country was very easily achieved. 

All this has of course greatly irritated the Venezuelans and they are looking to the United States 

Government as their only friend in the controversy on the ground that this new acquisition of 

territory and change of form of government in America by a European power directly violates the 

Monroe doctrine. Venezuelans are in Washington endeavoring to influence the United States 

Government to move in the matter. 

Gen. Francisco A. de Silva, the Venezuelan Consul at this port, said yesterday: “The English 

invasions in the Venezuelan territory are shameful and bare-faced. On Nov. 29 it was proposed in 

the Colonial Legislature of Demerara to construct a road which, crossing the rivers Mazaruni and 

Cuyuni, would extend to the boundary line of the colony. During the discussion it was claimed by 

the Queen’s Counselor that the Yuruari district was included within the limits. An army was sent to 

the Yuruari and no resistance on the part of Venezuelans was then feared, as they numbered only 

about 100 and all the rest of the inhabitants were English. A decree of the Governor of Demerara, 

dated Dec. 31, 1887, does not recognize the validity at a contract made with the Government of 

Venezuela for the opening of a railroad between Ciudad Bolivar and Guacipati. Therefore they do 

not only want the Yurauri, the Orinoco, and the Amacuro, but Ciudad Bolivar. 

“The British have given no excuse for the act. They simply wanted the territory took it. England 

has also violated her treaty with Venezuela, made in 1884, when she agreed not to interfere with any 

other portion of the country than Demerara. I consider the act an outrage, an insult, and a robbery, 

and if the United States does not interfere Venezuela will fight rather than submit. We can raise an 

army of 50,000 men. It seems as if England desired to make a second India of South America.” 

In Wall-street it was difficult to get any expression of opinion in the matter, but among shipping 

merchants and others engaged in South American trade there was an almost unanimous belief that 

the annexation of this large territory by England could not do otherwise than injure business here. 

W. H. Crossman of the firm of Crossman & Brother, merchants, at 77 Broad Street, said: “I 

have no doubt that it will injure business with South America. It will naturally have the effect of 

increasing British trade there. I don’t know that the United States can do anything in the matter, for 

it generally happens that when Great Britain grabs anything she keeps a tight hold.” 

J. M. Slydan, of Talbord Brothers, 85 Broad-street, was also of the opinion that it would 

produce a falling off in trade. “Still,” he said “I don’t know that it makes very much difference what 

country rules Venezuela, for while raw materials are taxed at the present high rate we cannot 

manufacture goods for South America at the prices charged by English merchants.” 

Ex-Mayor Grace said the matter did not affect his firm, their business being confined to Peru. 

Still he imagined it was an important matter for those interested in trade at that point. 

A. F. Fitz-Gerald of Vanderveer & Holmes said: “I have not doubt that it will injure South 

America. Still, we could never do much business with Venezuela. Their staple product is sugar. For 

the sake of protecting a few sugar planters in the South we put a high protective tariff on sugar. 

England admits sugar practically free and consequently Venezuela gets most of her merchandise 

from that country.” 


7

1887 - 1892 

- 7 - 

THE AFFAIRS OF BRITAIN 

A DENIAL OF REPORTS ABOUT VENEZUELA 

NO MILITARY OR NAVAL ACTION TAKEN— 

THE AGRICULTURAL DEPRESSION DISCUSSED 

LONDON, Feb. 20.—In the House of Commons this evening Sir James Fergusson, 

Parliamentary Secretary of the Foreign Office, declared that there was no truth whatever in the 

report that any military or naval action was being taken or was contemplated against Venezuela. 

Negotiations had been carried on respecting doubtful territory between British Guiana and 

Venezuela and the latter had proposed that the matter be submitted to arbitration. The British 

Government were not averse to the principle of arbitration, but they were unable to accept the basis 

that Venezuela proposed. The negotiations were temporarily stopped in consequence of the 

suspension of diplomatic relations by the late President Blanco. 


- 8 - 

THE YURUARI DISPUTE 

The circular just issued to Venezuela’s representatives in foreign countries by Minister Urbaneja 

declares that the Caracas Government is prepared to defend its territory by arms against the 

encroachments of British Guiana, though backed up by the overwhelming power of England. 

Should Great Britain really undertake to maintain by force her claims to the disputed mining region 

on the Upper Yuruari she would have every advantage. From her base at Trinidad Island, opposite 

the delta of the Orinoco, she could send her warships up that that broad and deep river to the 

Carony, and with her smaller craft hold the line of the latter river, while dispatching her troops to 

take possession of the entire territory eastward between it and British Guiana. But there is no good 

reason why this, like other boundary disputes, should not be submitted to arbitration, as Venezuela 

desires. 

If the case of British Guiana is as strong as the recent Exeter Hall meeting, under the 

Chairmanship of Sir Richard Temple, recently declared, there could, of course, be no difficulty in 

convincing a competent referee of that fact. 

The Yuruari gold mines have now been known for many years, and while it is a strong point in 

the Venezuelan case that the present assertion of British Guiana’s claims to this region have been 

made only since the richness of these mines was discovered, yet the boundary dispute in a different 

form has existed for more than half a century, and indeed was an inheritance of the English from 

the Dutch, who formerly owned the Essequibo country. It must also be admitted that English 

capital has largely been concerned, in the deve1opment of the mining district. Half a dozen of the 

mines are owned by English companies, with perhaps eight more owned by Venezuelans and two by 

French companies. It will be seen therefore that England has a large vested interest in the region, 

8


and English subjects form a considerable proportion of the laborers, who largely come from her 

West India islands, as well as the mining engineers and officials. 

But if these facts, which the richness of the country and the promise of future developments, 

account for British interest in is region, still more do they justify the resolution of Venezuela, as 

announced by Minister Urbaneja, to hold it for herself at all hazards. Venezuelans own not only the 

greatest number of the principal mines in addition to the small claims of single individuals, but the 

richest of all, those of the Callao Company, which alone yield more than a million a year and have 

been worked steadily from the first. In this region, also, are Venezuelan towns like Tupuquen and 

Caratal, and like Callao, Guacipati, Piacoa, and Las Tablas. Should Great Britain seize the whole 

region south of the Orinoco and East of the Carony, she would have something like 60,000 square 

miles more than she claimed under the boundary drawn in her interest by Schomburgk nearly fifty 

years ago, which boundary was deemed by Venezuela so unjust that the indicating marks were torn 

up and the claim to so westerly an extension of British Guiana repudiated whenever it afterward 

came up in formal discussion. Besides, such an annexation would give Great Britain the right bank 

of the Orinoco, Venezuela’s great water highway, for a long distance from its mouth, although to be 

sure, just now the Yuruari region is in dispute. 

The interests of our country are mainly those of friendly solicitude that a neighboring republic 

shall not be despoiled through the exercise of force by a European power. The Monroe doctrine 

does not enter into the case, as there is no threatened acquisition of a new foothold by a European 

power or overthrow of republican institutions. It is simply an ordinary boundary dispute like the one 

between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, just settled at Washington. Like that dispute it ought to be left to 

the determination of a competent referee, and while Venezuela’s resolve not to submit to force is 

natural, it would be unworthy of modern civilization to apply the law of the stronger to such a 

controversy. 


- 9 - 

THE DISPUTE BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND VENEZUELA 

The rumor that the British Government had sent troops into that part of Venezuelan Guiana 

known as the territory of Yuruari has been officially contradicted by the British Foreign Office. 

Whether the English troops have or have not been sent into Yuruari has nothing whatever to do 

with the collection of the moneys which were undoubtedly paid over by Venezuela to Great Britain 

in the early part of the present Winter. If Lord Salisbury contemplates sending a force into the 

district in question it will be for the sole purpose of putting England in a position to urge with better 

chances of prompt success her claims to certain territories which she asserts belong to her by reason 

of the terms of a treaty made with Holland one hundred years or more ago. 

The claims which were settled satisfactorily to Great Britain in December last were for indemnity 

for the capture of two schooners, (the Henrietta and another,) which at the time of their capture 

were flying the British flag and were said to belong to British subjects. The Venezuelans assert that 

these two vessels were engaged in contraband trade—that is to say, in smuggling — and all the facts 

9

1887 - 1892 

in the case warrant very much more than a slight suspicion that their captors were right in detaining 

the schooners at least until the skippers in command of them could clear their skirts of the grave and 

well-supported charge that they were indeed contrabandistas. It was clearly a case, as lawyers would 

say, “for a jury to decide,” and when Great Britain bluntly insisted on being indemnified without any 

discussion of the subject the Venezuelan authorities requested that sufficient delay be granted to try 

the case in the courts, guaranteeing a fair trial—indeed, they expressed themselves, it is said, willing 

to submit the whole matter to the arbitration of disinterested panics. This, on the basis proposed by 

Venezuela, England promptly refused, following up her refusal by anchoring two men-of-war off 

the town of La Guayra (the seaport of Caracas) and boldly announcing that if the sum of $40,000 

was not paid in seven days Venezuela would have cause to bitterly regret the delay. After vainly 

attempting to persuade the English Admiral to withdraw his ultimatum so hat they would not be 

obliged to pay the money under duress (promising meanwhile that the total sum would be promptly 

forthcoming) the Government at Caracas paid under protest the sum claimed, thus settling the affair 

of the Henrietta and her consort, and the English gunboats sailed away from La Guayra. 

Now for the much-vexed and little-understood boundary question which will be better 

understood after consulting the above official map. England bases her principal claims to the 

territory she now seeks to occupy on the terms of a treaty with Holland, made more than a century 

ago, whereby Great Britain acquired her rights to the colony now known as British Guiana, which is 

bounded on the west by the Essequibo River. Her right to stile territory east of the Essequibo River 

has never been in dispute. She has, however, from time to time, claimed that certain of the territory 

west of that river belonged to her, although just how far west her jurisdiction extended she never 

definitely stated until after Venezuela had succeeded in freeing herself from Spanish rule in 1821. 

Spain admitted the right of her ancient colonies to self-government in 1830, and in 1840 Sir Robert 

Schomburgk visited British Guiana. Schomburgk was a German by birth, but he was sent to Guiana 

by the London Geographical Society, and was afterward, in 1847, British Consul at San Domingo, 

so that it can be claimed for him that he was countenanced in his work by the British Government. 

He surveyed and somewhat imperfectly marked out a boundary line to the westward of the 

Essequibo River, which for a time limited the claim of England to territory then admittedly under 

the jurisdiction of the Venezuelan Government. 

In 1842 this line was repudiated by the British Government, which then made an offer to accept 

the Moroca River as the western boundary; this was declined by Venezuela but under Gladstone’s 

Government, in 1881, England secured an outlet to the sea through the Orinoco River. 

In 1870 valuable mines were discovered at Callao (pronounced Calya-o). The stock of the 

company owning the mines was floated in England. Until 1875 no dividends were paid, but since 

that time this wonderful bonanza has paid its lucky owners such profits that, for an original share of 

the mine which cost but 1,000 bolivares, 475,000 bolivares have been offered and declined. The 

shares are now quoted at 208,500 bolivares, and each original shareholder has received 13,000 

bolivares per annum on each 1,000 invested in Callao. 

The discovery of gold and copper in this district has caused a flow of English and German 

emigration into it, and now England renews, not her pretensions to the territory as far as to the line 

of Schomburgk or to the Moroca River, but claims all the country as far west as the Rio Caroni, a 

territory as large as, if not larger than, the State of New York. The Venezuelans base their claims on 

the following facts among others: When they drove the Spaniards out or their territory the mother 

country was in undisturbed possession of the Yuruari district, and by their treaties of peace with 

Spain they fell heirs to all the country then under the jurisdiction of the Spaniards. They also allege 

10


that 40 years ago the British Minister in Caracas made a recommendation to the Venezuelan 

Government that it should build a lighthouse at Barima Point, [see map] in order to render safer 

navigation at the mouths of the Orinoco River. 

11

1887 - 1892 

The Venezuelans claim that by making this recommendation England recognized the right of 

Venezuela to jurisdiction over Barima Point, and therefore to the territory to the west of it, a claim 

that certainly has at least some color of reasonableness. Undoubtedly England desires to get control 

of the district, the riches of which even Sir Walter Raleigh romances about in a wonderful way, 

saying that the gold that might he taken from its mines would load the ships of an armada. A few 

years ago the Venezuelan Government notified navigators that they intended to build a lighthouse 

on Barima Point, as recommended by the British Minister before mentioned. 

The British Government then informed the authorities at Caracas, that while Venezuela might 

build the lighthouse if she saw fit, it would not be regarded by England as an admission of the right 

of the Venezuelans to claim jurisdiction over the territory to the west of that point. After much 

negotiation and correspondence Guzman Blanco then President of Venezuela ordered St. John, then 

Minister to Caracas, to leave the country. 

Lately the Government of Venezuela expressed a desire to leave the matter to arbitration, and 

suggested that the arbitrator be the United States or Commissioners appointed to meet at 

Washington. Lord Salisbury met this proposition by promptly declining to communicate with the 

Venezuelan Government until Venezuela of her own motion renewed diplomatic relations with 

Downing Street by inviting the British Minister to return to Caracas. There the matter rests. What 

will be the result of the next phase of this interesting question, who can tell? England is all-powerful 

and Venezuela is apparently, indeed, practically is, at her mercy, but her people are not likely to 

submit tamely to any invasion of their territory. 


- 10 - 

THE CONTROL OF THE ORINOCO 

Venezuelans are becoming unpleasantly awakened by the fact that British Guiana is establishing 

herself in the delta of the Orinoco with an evident purpose to stay. This in some respects is quite as 

important an encroachment upon what they consider their territory as the grabbing of the Yuruari 

gold tract in the interior. The Orinoco is the great highway of commerce for the northern slope of 

South America. With its multitudinous affluents it drains almost every part of Venezuela, and its 

possession is a source of pride as well as of profit for that republic. Point Barima, where the officials 

of Georgetown hare established a customs post, is at the junction of a river of the same name, with 

the Orinoco at its broad mouth. Its possession, of course, implies the extension of the boundary of 

British Guiana, and, in fact, the line now claimed by the latter strikes the right bank of the Orinoco 

considerably further to the west than Point Barima. 

There is not much doubt that in the boundary dispute which has been going on for a long time 

between Venezuela and British Guiana both sides have advanced extreme pretensions. Venezuela, 

for example, cannot expect to confine the British to the Essequibo as their western limit. She derives 

her rights, of course, through Spain, having proclaimed her independence in 1811, and, after some 

vicissitudes, achieved it several years later. Great Britain takes her title from the Dutch, who ceded 

to her the colonies of Essequibo, Demerara, and Berbice in 1796, but reacquired them half a dozen 

years later, then parted with them again to Great Britain, this disposition being confirmed in 1814. 

12


The present question is therefore simply the old one between the Spaniards and the Dutch, who had 

frequent disputes over it. But what is clear from the treaty of Munster, made in 1648, is that the 

Spanish were recognized as possessed of the Orinoco and the Dutch of the Essequibo. So in the 

extradition treaty of the two nations made in 1691, the Essequibo colonies were spoken of as 

belonging to the Dutch and the Orinoco colonies to the Spaniards. But it would be rather a stranger 

interpretation that the entire valley of the Orinoco was intended in the one case and only half of the 

valley of the Essequibo in the other. In fact, the remains of what unquestionably were Dutch forts 

are found on the Pomazon River, which flows into the sea west of the Essequibo, and also at the 

junction of the Tapuru with the Cuyuni, which last is a western tributary of the Essequibo. There is 

little doubt that Dutch possession could be proved as far north on the coast as the Maruco. 

This, however, is quite a different matter from carrying the British Guiana boundary completely 

up to the Orinoco on the coast and then westward in the interior almost to the Caroni, a branch of 

the Orinoco flowing about parallel to the Essequibo. The ground taken by the British is that the 

whole region drained by the Essequibo belonged to the Dutch, as that of the Orinoco belonged to 

the Spanish. This claim might not be seriously resisted save that the great tributary of the Essequibo, 

the Cuyuni, rises far to the west, beyond the rich Caratal gold fields, whose possession is one of the 

chief elements in the present controversy. 

But oven were the British claim to the entire watershed both of the Essequibo and its branches 

conceded, that itself would not give them Point Barima or any of the adjoining territory immediately 

south of the Orinoco. The reason is that between the valley of the latter river and that of the Cuyuni 

there is a range of mountains called the Imataca which makes a decided division line According to 

Guzman Blanco, in 1836 the British Legation at Caracas spontaneously recognized the sovereignty 

of Venezuela at Point Barima by asking to have a lighthouse put there to aid the navigation of the 

Orinoco. Five years later, it is true, a British engineer, Schomburg, put up posts as far as Barima, but 

these were objected to and removed. So far as geographical conditions can rule, the Imataca 

Mountains, forming a watershed which carries all the streams on one side of it northward into the 

Orinoco, whereas those on the opposite side flow southward into the Cuyuni, would seem a 

thorough example of a natural boundary. This could be completed by the river Maruco, which flows 

from this range eastward into the Atlantic about forty miles north of the mouth of the Essequibo. 

No doubt those persons interested in the English mines of the Yuruari region would be content 

with this boundary could they at the same time secure possession of the gold tract south of it. But 

the importance of holding a firm foothold on the Orinoco itself causes British Guiana to maintain 

herself there in spite of Venezuelan protests. 

[19 January 1889] 

- 11 - 

A MEDDLING CONSUL 

It is a little more than two years since Venezuela broke off diplomatic relations with England on 

the refusal of the latter power to evacuate posts within the disputed territory lying between 

Venezuela and British. As to the wisdom of that action or as to the merits of the controversy which 

13

1887 - 1892 

led up to it we do not propose to inquire. It is certainly worth noting, however, that the effort to 

involve this country in the dispute is being renewed. Such seems at least to be a fair inference from 

the attitude assumed by the Venezuelan Consul-General in this city, Señor Mijares. In an interview 

granted to a reporter of the Sun of March 1, in addition to a necessarily ex parte statement of the 

difficulty between his own Government and that of Great Britain, he spoke strongly of what he 

called the large American interests involved, and thought that it was high time this country should 

take steps to express its disapproval of the alleged usurpations of England. 

This is an altogether improper and ill-advised position for the Consul to take. If Venezuela 

desires to ask for the good offices of this country in her dispute with England she has her own 

legation at Washington, and there is the ace and there the means for her to make whatever 

representations she may choose. Unless, which is. not to be supposed, the Venezuelan Minister 

directly inspired the words of the Consul, the latter is acting in a way wholly insulting to the former 

and ought at once to be called to book for his imprudence. It would be bad enough for the Minister 

himself to be found endeavoring to embroil this country in the disputes of foreign powers through 

the medium of the public press; that was the kind of thing for which Washington insisted upon the 

recall of the French Minister, Genet; but for a Consul to undertake it is not only an act of 

insubordination, but would be altogether ridiculous if there were not some likelihood that it may be 

mischievous. 

That it was the latter is the judgment of the organ of the Spanish-American republics in this city, 

Las Novedades, which strongly advised Señor Mijares to keep his fingers out of pies with which he 

had no concern. And in the same newspaper appeared shortly after a long letter from a Venezuelan 

citizen giving an outline of the whole trouble and reprobating the interference of the Consul as likely 

to do far more harm than good. 

According to this gentleman the Venezuelan Government has already seen reason to repent of 

the high tone it took with England and the precipitate rupture of diplomatic relations into which it 

rushed. However strong its case might be, it was folly to try to bully England. In fact, so this writer 

says, Venezuela is just about ready to ask England to resume diplomatic relations as a preliminary to 

a peaceful arbitration of the difficulty between the two countries. And it is understood that the 

British Government will meet the request in the most friendly manner, Mr. Labouchère recently 

declared in his newspaper, Truth, that such would be the case. Certainly the history of the entire 

controversy reveals a succession of attempts on the part of Great Britain to settle the question by 

mutual concessions. 

It is not very rash to associate this outbreak of the Consul with the change in Administration. He 

has probably heard of Mr. Blaine and of the rigorous foreign policy which is that gentleman’s 

delight, and may have particularly remembered his exploits in South American affairs on a former 

occasion. A man who could decide off-hand the disputed boundary between Mexico and 

Guatemala, even if it turned out that he was egregiously in the wrong and had to withdraw from his 

first position, would be just the Secretary, so the innocent Consul may have though, to haul down 

the British flag on the right bank of the Orinoco and tell the English that they had no rights there. 

Possibly, too, the Consul may have divined that sentence of the President’s inaugural address, in 

which he says that this country expects that no European power will attempt to found a colony on 

this continent. 

If the boundary of British Guiana should be pushed 125 miles further along the ocean that might 

be interpreted as the equivalent of founding a colony. At any rate, the Consul cannot be blamed for 

thinking, after all that was promised us last Summer, that Mr. Blaine would manage our foreign 

14


affairs with a high hand, once in the Department of State again, or for believing that a newspaper cry 

for spirited action would be just the sort of influence to bring to bear upon the new Secretary. 

[16 March 1889] 

- 12 - 

BLAINE’S TORTUOUS POLICY 

VENEZUELA FINDS HIS REPUTATION AS A TAIL TWISTER UNDESERVED 

WASHINGTON, April 19.—One of the best-kept secrets of thee Pan-American Congress has 

been the efforts made by Venezuela to get help in her quarrel with Great Britain. The Venezuelan 

delegates came to the conference in the highest hopes that they would be able to secure substantial 

moral aid and comfort, even if not something more tangible. They were encouraged in these hopes 

by the attitude of the Secretary of State’s personal organ in New York which paper indulged in a 

good deal of talk about the great advantage which would result to Venezuela from Mr. B1aine’s lofty 

ideas of all-American solidarity. In the congress itself they have been eagerly watching their 

opportunity to get the expression they desired. 

As it has long been their hope to have their dispute with England submitted to arbitration, they 

naturally felt that their best chance would be in connection with the recommendations made by the 

congress in favor of a broad system of arbitration among all the nations of this continent. 

Accordingly they proposed and strenuously advocated a clause solemnly calling upon England, in 

the name of the international congress and in the face of the civilized world, to recede from her 

present position and consent to arbitrate her difficulty with Venezuela. Many or the South American 

delegates ardently supported the proposition. But alas! for the delusive promises made by the 

Tribune, energetic objection was made by Mr. Blaine’s representative, Mr. Trescot, and the 

suggestion of the Venezuelans was rejected. The most they could get was the vague resolution 

reported by the Welfare Committee, expressing the benevolent hope that European powers would 

be willing to resort to arbitration in any dispute that might arise with an American nation. 

The disappointment of Venezuela’s delegates would not be so great if they had not been misled 

by Mr. Blaine’s reputation as the great American twister or the lion’s tail. Yet a recurrence to the 

history of their efforts to secure the intervention or the United States in their behalf should have 

shown them that Mr. Blaine’s tail twisting was confined to the stump, and was never exhibited in the 

Department of State. The first approach made to the United States was in 1876 when the 

Venezuelan Minister of Foreign affairs appealed to Mr. Fish, requesting the United States to “lend 

their powerful moral support” to his country, at the same time submitting an outline of the case 

against Great Britain, which is, by the way, an almost overwhelming argument for the justice of 

Venezuela’s position. No reply appears to have been made to this application, and things ran along 

until just at the close of the Hayes Administration. Then Secretary Evarts was appealed to on the 

occasion of fresh British aggressions, Ho responded with an expression of the “deep interest which 

the Government of the United States takes in all transactions tending to attempted encroachments 

of foreign powers upon the territory of any of the republics of this continent.” A month later he 

sent a second note to the Venezuelan Minister, saying that “the severe pressure of public business at 

15

1887 - 1892 

the close of an Administrative term” would prevent him from following up the matter, but adding 

that he did not doubt that “your representations will have like earnest and solicitous consideration in 

the hands of my successor.” 

Naturally the Venezuelans had no doubt of it either, as “my successor” was the intense 

American and anti-English statesman, James G. Blaine. It was not long, therefore, before a formal 

application was made by Venezuela to the American Department of State for “the support, in some 

form, of the Government of the United States.” Will it be believed that to this urgent appeal Mr. 

Blaine retuned no reply except a cold acknowledgment of its receipt. Yet that is all the official 

correspondence shows. The only truly American Secretary left it to the English sympathizer, 

Frelinghuysen, and the English tool, Bayard, to take up and actively press the case of Venezuela, as 

they faithfully and persistently did. 

The attitude of England throughout the whole dispute has been little short of outrageous. Little 

by little edging her way northward from her possessions in Guiana, she has passed far beyond the 

Essequibo, the boundary fixed in all the maps and recognized universally as the proper terminus of 

English Guiana, until now she has occupied the south bank of the Orinoco. Venezuela has all along 

protested against this advance, and has been so sure of her rights that she has even offered to submit 

the case to a board of arbitrators composed entirely of Englishmen, provided they were personally 

disinterested and competent. Under the late Liberal Government, some progress toward peaceful 

settlement making. 

Lord Granville proposed arbitration under certain conditions, and Lord Rosebery offered a 

compromise. With the advent of Lord Salisbury to power, however, all was changed. He brusquely 

declined to be bound by the promises of his predecessor—a breach of diplomatic propriety, to say 

tine least. His tone grew so increasingly high that finally Venezuela, early in 1888, lost patience, and 

said that if the British did not at once retire the English Minister would receive his passports. Of 

course, England never gives in to threats from a power like Venezuela, and so the only result has 

been to break off diplomatic relations. 

England has steadily gone on just the same, asserting sovereignty over the disputed territory and 

pushing on colonization. Unless Venezuela consents to eat humble pie and beg for the renewal of 

diplomatic relations, there is no prospect whatever that England will even consider the question of 

arbitrating the dispute. To judge by the inaugural address of the new Venezuelan President, his 

country is in no mood to make a craven submission to Great Britain. The Venezuelan delegates say 

that his talk about an attack on the English troops and colonists within the disputed area, in case all 

peaceful measures fall, is by no means to be considered as buncombe. It represents, they say, the 

prevailing national sentiment. They are fully aware of the hopeless nature of the struggle with 

England, though they maintain that it would be an immense undertaking for any foreign power to 

attempt to subjugate their country. It would be impossible to stamp out a guerrilla warfare among 

their vast forests and inaccessible mountains They point to the example or France in Mexico and say 

that Venezuela would repeat the Mexican tactics against the French. It the Liberal Party should be 

restored to power in England they would have good hopes of more decent treatment and of 

ultimate peaceful settlement of the long-standing difficulty. At present they consider the outlook 

gloomy and think that an armed collision may occur. Then they expect to be cut off from the rest of 

the world by an English fleet, and what the end will be they cannot imagine. Meanwhile they do not 

conceal their disappointment at not getting from the Pan-American Congress the support they have 

asked or their special surprise that their greatest difficulty should have been encountered in the 

person of a delegate from the United States. 

16


[20 April 1890] 

- 13 - 

DRIVEN OUT OF VENEZUELA 

TWO MAP CANVASSERS FROM NEW YORK BANISHED 

There seems to be a possibility that the United States Government will become involved in the 

dispute of Great Britain and Venezuela as to the boundary line between the latter country and 

British Guiana. The manner in which our Government becomes interested is peculiar. Early last 

May Gaylord Wilson, the map publisher of this city sent two canvassers, Charles A. Conolly and W. 

T. Stevens, to Venezuela to sell his new map of South America and a book in which he is interested. 

The first intimation that the ways of the Venezuelan are not our ways was conveyed in a letter 

written by Conolly at Caracas on May 16, in which he said he had been “prohibited from offering 

maps because they say boundaries are wrong. Came very near having all the maps confiscated.” But 

the Venezuelan thunderbolt was launched May 22, when Conolly wrote: “Since writing you last I 

have been ordered to leave the country within twenty-four hours, owing to what they call the 

illegality of the map of South America.” 

Conolly appealed to the United States Minister, William L. Scruggs, who interceded with the 

Venezuelan authorities in his behalf, but without success, and the men were forced to leave. Conolly 

went to Trinidad while Stevens went to Barbados. The decree of banishment was published in a 

Caracas paper with extended comments. The Venezuelan objection to the map is that it agrees with 

the English and German official maps fixing the eastern boundary of Venezuela at the River 

Amacura, while the Venezuelan Government claims the territory extending further eastward to the 

River Essquiba, which all these maps place in British Guiana. 

Mr. Watson said yesterday to a Times reporter: “The matter has been brought, I understand, to 

the attention at our Government by the United States Minister, but I do not know that any action 

has been taken in regard to it. I have not myself appealed to the Government yet, because I am 

waiting for full particulars, and I think it probable that Mr. Conolly will be here himself in a few 

days. I think this is a chance for Mr. Blaine to give an exhibition of his vigorous foreign policy.” 

[19 June 1890] 

- 14 - 

TROUBLE IN VENEZUELA 

A BRITISH GUNBOAT CAPTURES A GOVERNMENT VESSEL 

MONTREAL, Quebec, Aug. 26.—A private dispatch received to-day by Mr. Barnet Lawrence, 

Consul for Venezuela, states that the British gunboat Ready, from Demerara, with Commissioner 

McTurck on board, arrived at Barima, at the mouth of the Orinoco, and ordered the Captain of the 

Faro, a Venezuelan man-of-war, to haul down his colors. The Captain submitted to superior force. 

17

1887 - 1892 

The Venezuelan Government has sent a commission to the spot to investigate, and the 

commander of the Faro will be tried by court-martial for having yielded without making a proper 

show of resistance. The press of Caracas suggests that another vessel be sent with her guns shotted 

and the Venezuelan flag nailed to the mast, and, if worsted, that an appeal be made to the United 

States and sister republics of South America and to the Parliament of England. 

A dispute has existed for some time between England and Venezuela as to a portion of the 

territory lying between British Guiana and the mouth of the Orinoco River, which is the natural 

outlet for the produce of the country. Lately two Canadians named William Try Stevens and Charles 

A. Connolly, representing themselves as Americans from New-York, were expelled from the 

country for selling maps in the city of Caracas showing this belt of land as being disputed territory. 

[27 August 1890] 

- 15 - 

THE CONTROL OF THE ORINOCO 

Whatever the special circumstances attending the recent treatment of the Venezuelan flag at 

Point Barima by the British gunboat Ready, the act indicates that Great Britain is determined to 

maintain her foothold at that place. Point Barima is at the westerly end of Barima Island, at the 

mouth of Venezuela’s great river, the Orinoco. The establishment of officials there, whose authority 

is supported by British naval vessels, apparently shows that, against the protest of Venezuela, the 

frontier line of British Guiana is to be carried to and beyond Point Barima, so as to bring the mouth 

of this river under British control Even Mr. Hugh Watt, M.P., the Chairman of the New Chili Gold- 

Mining Company, which has urged the British Government to possess itself of the Yuruari gold 

fields in the interior of Venezuela, hardly thinks it right to make so great a seizure upon the coast, 

“Should the Government,” he once wrote, “in order to effect a peaceable and amicable settlement, 

decide to declare by the river now called Yuruari, I would suggest that the Punta Barima be given to 

Venezuela, so that she could command the mouth of the Orinoco, which, I do not hesitate to say, 

was intended by the treaty of Munster.” This treaty, made in 1648, was the one in which Spain 

recognized certain conquests of the Dutch in Guiana that had formed part of the Captain Generalcy 

of Caracas. Even at that time, or soon after, disputes arose as to the exact boundary line. These 

disputes continue to the present day, Venezuela having, in 1810, inherited by her independence the 

rights of Spain, whatever they were, and Great Britain, in 1814, the rights of the Dutch to the 

colonies of the Essequibo, Berbice, and Demerara. But even in 1691 an extradition treaty of the 

Spaniards and the Dutch spoke of the Orinoco colonies as belonging to the former and the 

Essequibo colonies as belonging to the latter. If, accordingly, the English claim, this agreement 

refers to settlements on both banks of the Essequibo instead of only on the east bank, as the 

Venezuelans claim, it must by the same reasoning accord to the latter both banks of the Orinoco. 

That the English have never until late years practically sought to exercise jurisdiction upon the 

Orinoco seems clear. It is true that about fifty years ago Engineer Schomburg marked out as the 

western boundary of British Guiana a line scores of miles beyond the Essequibo, and striking the 

Orinoco considerably west even of Point Barima. But this appears to have been in the main a purely 

18


arbitrary or experimental line, and only five years earlier the British legation bad inferentially 

recognized the sovereignty of Venezuela at Punta Barima by asking the construction of a lighthouse 

there in order to make the navigation of the Orinoco safer. However, on the remonstrance of 

Venezuela, the posts and other boundary marks of Schomburg were removed, and a few years later, 

in 1844, the British suggested as the boundary line the River Moroco, a small stream which enters 

the Atlantic very far south of the mouth of the Orinoco and much nearer the Essequibo. Still later, 

Lord Granville intimated that England would accept line twenty-nine miles east of the Barima River. 

It is unfortunate for Venezuela that she declined to accept the former suggestions, which would 

have been a fair compromise. The Dutch, crossing the Essequibo centuries ago, founded a colony 

about forty miles north of the latter, on the River Pomaron, which empties into the Atlantic at the 

same point as the Moroco. Relics of Dutch settlement show this, and it is also known that the 

English, shortly after their acquisition of the country from the Dutch, proceeded across the 

Essequibo to the same points. The River Moroco, which runs more directly east, would have given 

British Guiana only the same coast acquisition as a line bounded by the Pomaron, with a little more 

of the interior. Of course, the subsequently proposed line, running only twenty-nine miles to the east 

of Barima, would demand more; still, even that would have left the Orinoco wholly in Venezuelan 

control. But the diplomacy of the republic has been conducted rather bunglingly, and with a foolish 

unwillingness to recognize that delay may be dangerous in dealing with a much stronger power. 

After having first proposed a joint convention for mutually settling the boundary dispute, to which 

Great Britain responded by proposing to add sundry British pecuniary claims against Venezuela for 

adjustment, Venezuela changed her ground to a demand for arbitration. This change seems to have 

been made on the ground that her Constitution prohibited any voluntary cession of territory. Great 

Britain apparently was indisposed to quibble about the notions of a Spanish-American country on 

that point, doubtless holding that she did not ask Venezuela to cede any of her own territory, but 

only to come to an agreement as to what was British territory and abandon that. Still, the present, 

like most other boundary disputes, is eminently adapted to international arbitration, and Great 

Britain, as the stronger power, might well accept it. In view, too, of the agreements of 1850 between 

the two countries not to occupy territory in dispute, she should are refrain from encroachment upon 

the Orinoco, even if these are made on the ground of securing the free navigation of that river. 


- 16 - 

EDITORIAL 

[ENGLAND AND VENEZUELA SHOULD AGREE ON ARBITRATION] 

Since France and Holland have very sensibly concluded to settle the question of boundary 

between French Guiana and Dutch Guiana by arbitration, the Emperor of Russia consenting to act 

as the referee, why should not England and Venezuela resort to the same method for settling the 

disputed boundary of British Guiana? The three Guianas have experienced many changes of 

ownership. Surinam, or Dutch Guiana, was visited by the French in 1640, taken by the English in 

1650, occupied by the Dutch in 1667, retaken by the English, ceded to the Dutch in 1669, again 

19

1887 - 1892 

taken by the English in 1796, given to the Dutch in 1802, recaptured by the English in 1804, and 

given up to Holland in 1814. Meanwhile Cayenne, or French Guiana, had been previously held by 

the French, the English, the Dutch, the French, the British, and the French. There was plenty of 

opportunity for confusion in boundaries with all these changes, and that a like difference in claims 

should exist between British Guiana, or Demerara, and Venezuela is not strange, considering the 

vicissitudes of possession through which they also passed. That the dispute still exists is partly 

Venezuela’s fault, since she had the opportunity in past years, by making a not wholly unreasonable 

concession to Great Britain, to settle the affair. Since then, John Bull has gone to the mouth of the 

Orinoco on the coast, and has had his eyes on the Yuruari gold fields in the interior, and now may 

be harder to satisfy. But the other Guianas have set this one a good example. 

[2 October 1890] 

- 17 - 

ENGLAND IN VENEZUELA 

AFRAID TO SUBMIT HER ALLEGED RIGHTS TO ARBITRATION 

To the Editor of the New-York Times: 

Venezuela has for several years had a frontier dispute with England. The region of Guiana, 

claimed by Venezuela, as successor of Spain, was undoubtedly discovered by Spaniards. It was only 

after they had taken possession of it that some English adventurers, among them Sir Walter Raleigh, 

visited the country, simply to be driven out again. From that day Spain held peaceful possession of 

Guiana as far as the Essequibo River, though the boundary with the then Dutch colony was never 

well defined. Until the discovery of gold there, however, that fact remained without practical 

importance, since the entire region was believed to be valueless and peopled by savages. But the 

instant it was discovered that Guiana abounded with gold, England awoke and manifested an 

intention to seize everything. In fact, she has almost done so, Venezuela having neglected to lay a 

firm hold upon what is undoubtedly her own. 

Hence the quarrel. There can be no question as to where the right belongs. There can be no 

doubt that it does not belong to England, though she claims an abundance of documentary proof of 

her title to the country as far as the Cuyuni River. But if this be so, why does she so obstinately 

refuse arbitration? This would be the quickest way of settlement. That England refuses creates the 

suspicion that she fears to come out second best. The manner in which that vast empire is scattered 

frequently brings her into boundary collisions, and the policy she adopts is modified according to 

her antagonist’s resources. To rampant Russia, she offers the suaviter in modo; to puny Portugal, the 

fortiter in re. And when of “weaker vessels” she demands a prompt acceptance of her ultimatums, the 

demand is apt to be accompanied by a threat ill disguised beneath diplomatic phraseology. 

The United States has taken a certain interest in the Venezuelan question, but should take more. 

Venezuela is a sister republic. Our Government, instead of remaining neutral, should protest against 

the plundering of the weak by the strong, and should vigorously urge upon England the justice and 

propriety of a recourse to arbitration. “Let him take who as the chance, and let him keep who can” 

20


is merely a brutal elaboration of “might makes right.” We live in the bright age, not the dark, and 

ought to have developed beyond the reach of such selfish sophistry. 

FRANK VINCENT 

New-York, Tuesday, March 3, 1891 

[8 March 1891] 

- 18 - 

CRUISERS OFF FOR VENEZUELA 

EX-SECRETARY BAYARD TALKS ON THE OBJECT OF THEIR VISIT 

WILMINGTON, Del., Sept 14.—The departure from Brooklyn last Sunday morning of the 

cruisers Chicago and Philadelphia, under the pennant at Rear Admiral John G. Walker, under sealed 

orders for La Guayra, Venezuela, has given rise to much speculation concerning the mission for 

these two vessels of war. One theory is that the object of the movement is an inquiry into the recent 

encroachment of the British Government upon the territorial possessions of Venezuela. Another is 

that the war ships are sent out to enforce the rights of American citizens and investigate the seizure 

by Gen. Urdaneta of ex-refugees found on the Red D steamship Venezuela several weeks ago, while 

that steamer was in Venezuelan waters. 

The Hon. Thomas F. Bayard, who, while Secretary of State under President Cleveland, gave 

considerable official attention to the subject of British aggressions in Venezuela, in an interview with 

a reporter this afternoon, said: 

“The question of the boundaries of Venezuela, where they approach those of British Guiana, has 

been for a long time a vexed question between Venezuela and the Government of Great Britain, or, 

rather, private companies of British subjects engaged in gold mining in what is known as the 

Orinoco region. 

“From time to time maps have been delineated of the supposed boundaries of Venezuelan 

territory and jurisdiction. Serious complaints were made by the Venezuelan representatives in 

Washington of the encroachment of British jurisdiction and of claims to navigate the Orinoco River 

to such an extent as would penetrate the interior of Venezuela and destroy the independent 

authority of that country over a vast region of valuable commerce which that country claimed as her 

own exclusively. 

“I was never disposed to believe, after pretty full examination of the subject, that there was any 

design upon the part of Great Britain to expand her jurisdiction as a nation over the territory in 

dispute; but I believe, and I think a true history of the case will show, that the differences had their 

origin in large mining concessions obtained by British subjects, as private en enterprises, from the 

Government of Venezuela, and, consequently, the investment of a great deal of British capital in the 

development of these rich mining regions. 

“After these investments were made and property became valuable, these private owners found 

themselves not only without that protection of established law which alone gives property its 

security, but that they were subjected from time to time to the exactions and tyrannical demands of 

the Venezuelan officials. 

21

1887 - 1892 

“Therefore, it was that they claimed British protection against spoliation by Venezuelan officials, 

and were desirous of seeing British jurisdiction extended over the territory in which their mining 

operations were conducted. 

“It was only another instance of the dependence of the institution of property upon just laws 

honestly administered. The region in regard to which these boundary differences exist is remote, 

thinly settled, and unhealthful, with very few incidents of civilized government. The miners prefer 

British laws to Venezuelan authority, and have encouraged, undoubtedly, the expansion of the 

British boundaries so as to give them and their property security under British laws. 

“The United States continued to proffer their good offices to both Governments—Venezuela 

and Great Britain—but the conduct of Guzman Blanco in abruptly breaking off diplomatic relations 

with Great Britain prevented Lord Salisbury from entering into negotiations until diplomatic 

intercourse had been restored. 

“It was expected, and, in fact quite openly charged, that Guzman Blanco, the President of 

Venezuela, was creating difficulties in order to compel certain English mining companies to sell him 

or give him their stock; but it is certain that his actions stood in the way of an and amicable 

adjustment or the boundary question. 

“Mr. Blaine’s last note of May 2, 1890, is the final publication on the subject, excepting a note 

from Mr. Adee of July 2, 1890, to the same general effect. No volume of foreign relations 

correspondence has been published for 1891, as has been the custom heretofore. 

“As the attitude of the United States was to be one of impartial friendship toward both 

Governments, the present concentration of naval forces is not explained by anything in the 

published correspondence thus far. 

“Whether the more than doubtful claim of jurisdiction by the United States within the territorial 

waters of another Government, which was apparently implied, rather than asserted in the Barrundia 

case,* is now to be repeated remains to be seen. 

“Certain it is, the United States would promptly enforce its own jurisdiction over all persons 

charged with a violation of its laws who were found within its territory, whether of land or water. If 

we deny this to other nations, or to some and not to others, our own position will be very difficult 

to maintain when we seek to execute our domestic laws within our own jurisdiction.” 


*The killing of General Barrundia on board the Pacific mail steamer Acapulco, while anchored in transit in the port 

of San Jose de Guatemala, demanded careful inquiry. Having failed in a revolutionary attempt to invade Guatemala 

from Mexican territory, General Barrundia took passage at Acapulco for Panama. The consent of the 

representatives of the United States was sought to effect his seizure, first at Champerico, where the steamer 

touched, and afterwards at San Jose. The captain of the steamer refused to give up his passenger without a written 

order from the United States minister. The latter furnished the desired letter, stipulating as the condition of his 

action that General Barrundia's life should be spared and that he should be tried only for offenses growing out of 

his insurrectionary movements. This letter was produced to the captain of the Acapulco by the military commander 

at San Jose as his warrant to take the passenger from the steamer. General Barrundia resisted capture and was killed. 

It being evident that the minister, Mr. Mizner, had exceeded the bounds of his authority in intervening, in 

compliance with the demands of the Guatemalan authorities, to authorize and effect, in violation of precedent, the 

seizure on a vessel of the United States of a passenger in transit charged with political offenses, in order that he 

might be tried for such offenses under what was described as martial law, I was constrained to disavow Mr. Mizner's 

act and recall him from his post. 

22


- 19 - 

WELCOME IN VENEZUELA 

CRESPO PLEASED WITH RECOGNITION BY THE UNITED STATES. 

SOUTH PORTLAND’S ARRIVAL FROM TRINIDAD AND THE DISPOSAL 

OFTHE SHIP—CAPTURE OF BARCELONA AND THE TROOPS 

UNDER ARMS – NEW TROUBLE AT BOLIVAR 

CARACAS, Venezuela, Oct. 28.—Assurances received from the from the United States that 

Crespo’s Government had been recognized by the Washington authorities were warmly welcomed 

here. “I would rather,” says Crespo, “have that satisfaction than the knowledge that all the rest of 

the foreign powers had acknowledged me.” 

“The United States has over been ready to lend the Southern republics a helping hand, and with 

its acquiescence in our plans and measures we can well afford to go ahead and develop our country, 

so rich in all that is required to make us prosperous,” said one of the leading Senators. 

It is said that the proposal to give to the United States the property in the eastern section of the 

country over which England has had a dispute for a number of years has been very favorably 

considered. Little can, however, be done in this matter until some more definite arrangement is 

made with British Guiana, or, in other words, with the home Government in England. The section 

of the country referred to contains the richest mining districts in Venezuela. 

The arrival of the steamer South Portland from Trinidad and the capture of Barcelona and the 

few remaining troops still under arms in that vicinity against Señor Crespo are the chief military 

topics that have been under discussion here for the past week. The South Portland is no doubt by 

name familiar in the United States. She was at one time seized for having warlike material aboard to 

assist a party in rebellion against at Government with which the United States was at peace. She was 

released and allowed to clear from New-York for the Island of Trinidad. Mr. Gonsalez, a 

Venezuelan, who negotiated the bargain for the arms and ammunition, came down here by another 

steamer from the United States, and disembarked at Curaçao with the intention of going over to 

Trinidad, a distance of almost five hundred miles, in a small schooner. A severe storm arose, and 

nothing has since been heard from Señor Gonsalez; so it is feared that he and his frail craft are lost. 

Capt. Smith or the South Portland, having remained as long as he dared at Trinidad, left for La 

Guayra, whore he arrived about ten days ago. Just what to do with his 4,000 rifles, his Gatlings, and 

his 1,500,000 cartridges was quite a question, as the bill was a big one, the war was over, and the 

chief party in the deal was not on hand. In view, however, of the possible trouble in the Spring, 

when another uprising is probable, it was finally decided to take the arms, store them in the Custom 

house at La Guayra, and have them handy. It was then proposed to use the vessel as a transport to 

take troops to the eastward,[sic] where, in the Maracaibo district, there is still more or less opposition 

to Señor Crespo’s rule: but the agent of the American Red Line said: “No one steamer can do all the 

transporting that is necessary, and the money for such work is ours by right, as we pulled Crespo’s 

party through and established it firmly in its present position.” And so ends the matter of the 

Portland. 

In the Barcelona district, which was one of the last of the eastern divisions to hold out against 

Crespo’s authority, an Indian General was in command. His prowess and ability were such that he 

was greatly respected as an antagonist, and it was not until troops outnumbering his own four to one 

23

1887 - 1892 

had been sent against him that he was subdued. When he was finally defeated and taken prisoner 

Crespo sent a dispatch saying that his life was to be spared and that he was to be sent to Caracas, as 

he, Crespo, was extremely desirous of taking by the hand a man whose valor and wisdom were 

admitted to be of the highest order. 

A new trouble has recently been developed at Bolivar, which is some 250 miles or more up the 

Orinoco River, right in the heart of Venezuela. It seems that a former United States Consul at that 

place, a Mr. Underwood, has gotten into such serious trouble with the local authorities that the 

presence of a United States man-of-war has been deemed necessary, and the corvette Kearsarge will 

leave almost immediately to investigate the difficulty. This Mr. Underwood became very much 

interested in the Bolivar water works, so much so than he gave up, or was obliged to give up, his 

Consular position. 

As such matters quite often turn out in foreign countries, Underwood got into serious difficulties 

with the native authorities, which finally resulted in his being thrown into jail. His wife, fearing that 

in the chaotic state of the country and the prevailing looseness of law and order her husband would 

lose his life, communicated as soon as she could with our Consul in Trinidad, and through him with 

the State Department at Washington. She herself barely escaped being put into jail, and had the 

utmost difficulty in getting away from Bolivar. 

[5 November 1892] 

24


- Part 2 - 

January - November 1895 

25


26


- 20 - 

BRITISH GUIANA BOUNDARIES 

Appeal to Lord Kimberley for Arbitration with Venezuela 

LONDON, Jan. 2.—The International Arbitration Society has sent to Lord Kimberley, 

Secretary of the Foreign Office, a resolution of the committee concerning the delay in the settlement 

of Great Britain’s dispute with Venezuela as to the boundaries of British Guiana. 

The committee directs attention to President Cleveland’s reference to the subject in his last 

message, and emphasizes the seriousness of Great Britain’s responsibility in the matter. After 

speaking of the society’s previous letters on the subject, the committee’s communication continues: 

“We beg the Government to state what Venezuelan claims are unsuited to arbitration. We learn 

that Venezuela would willingly enter into explanations likely to lead to a modification of such claims. 

President Cleveland must have been duly advised when he deliberately suggested that the subject as 

a whole could be fairly comprised within the terms of amicable arbitration.” 

The committee expresses approval of Mr. Cleveland’s suggestion that the first step toward a 

settlement should be an effort to restore diplomatic relations between the countries, and prays the 

Government to make friendly advances to this end. 

[3 January 1895] 

To the Editor of The New-York Times: 

- 21 - 

THE VENEZUELA BOUNDARY 

Ex-Minister Scruggs Writes About the Dispute 

The dispute referred to in your editorial of the 5th inst. in relation to the British-Venezuela 

boundary dates as far back as 1827, and has been a source or constant irritation ever since. The 

territory in dispute contains an area as large as the States of New-York and New-Jersey, and is one 

of the most fertile and productive regions on the continent. 

Venezuela, as the successor in title of Spain in 1810, has always consistently and persistently 

claimed the entire territory on the Atlantic coast between the Esequibo and Orinoco Rivers, and 

southward from the coast to the Brazilian border. She supports this claim by an unbroken chain of 

title, beginning with the treaty of Munster of 1648 between Spain and the United Netherlands and 

by subsequent public treaties and ordinances down to 1845, when Spain formally ceded to 

Venezuela the entire Guiana territory west of the Esequibo and southward to the Brazilian border. 

England, as the successor in title of the Netherlands in 1814, first extended her claim westward of 

the Esequibo to the Pumaron River, and she subsequently extended it indefinitely, first to the mouth 

of the Moroca, and then to the Guiama, then to the Barima, and finally to the Orinoco, including 

the main channel which connects the Orinoco with the Atlantic Ocean. She has likewise extended 

her claim indefinitely southward hundreds of leagues into the gold-bearing districts of Yuruari. She 

27


supports this claim, not by any additional concessions since 1814, nor by any title derived from 

Holland as evinced by public documents, but by some pretended treaty with Indian tribes, very 

much as any European power might pretend to sovereignty in Dakota in virtue of pretended treaties 

with the aborigines in North America. And a remarkable feature of England’s present pretensions is 

that she now claims and occupies and has actually set up de facto Governments within a vast region 

of country which she herself has more than once acknowledged to be legitimately and indisputably 

within the domain and jurisdiction of Venezuela. 

Unable to repel these bold aggressions in the manner usually adopted by strong Governments in 

the last resort, Venezuela has appealed to the moral sense of the civilized world in the hope that 

some just and honorable termination of the dispute by arbitration may be brought about through 

the mediation of friendly powers. The United States has not been indifferent to these appeals, nor 

could our Government afford to be in view of its well-known policy and traditions since 1823. Time 

and again it has tendered its good offices as the impartial friend of both parties; and it has even 

made formal tender of its services as impartial arbitrator, if acceptable to both parties. It did this 

with the less hesitancy because the dispute turns upon simple and readily ascertainable historical 

facts. And this, be it remembered, is all that Venezuela asks, or has ever asked since 1841. 

And yet, as if conscious of the unjust and flimsy character of her claim, England persists in her 

refusal to submit the matter to arbitration; but disregarding all remonstrances, including those of the 

United States and ten Of the Spanish-American republics, to say nothing of those made by Spain as 

early as 1886, England has gone on absorbing Venezuelan territory, until now the dismemberment 

of the republic is directly threatened, and the territorial integrity and sovereignty of at least two other 

South-American republics are indirectly menaced. 

Washington, D. C., Jan. 12, 1895. 

[17 January 1895] 

- 22 - 

BOUNDARY LIMITS IN GUIANA 

Venezuela and Great Britain Should Refer to Arbitration 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 31.—The House Foreign Affairs Committee to-day ordered a favorable 

report upon the Livingston resolution that “the President’s suggestion in his last annual message to 

Congress that Great Britain and Venezuela refer their dispute as to boundary limits in Guiana to 

friendly arbitration, be most earnestly commended to the favorable consideration of both the parties 

in interest.” 

The preamble to the resolutions recites that the foregoing boundary dispute naturally comes 

within the scope and range of matters that can be consistently arbitrated, in that it turns exclusively 

upon simple and readily ascertainable historical facts, and that it would be , moreover, extremely 

gratifying to impartial friends of both parties to see this matter thus adjusted, in order that 

international complications be avoided and American public law and traditions maintained. 

The adoption of this resolution is a practical response to the argument which Mr. W. H. 

Cremer, the English member of Parliament, made before the committee recently in favor of the 

adoption of the principle of arbitration by the United States. 

28



- 23 - 

GOOD ADVICE TO ENGLAND 

Requested to Arbitrate the Guiana Boundary Case 

HOUSE PASSES A JOINT RESOLUTION 

Indorsement of the Suggestion of President Cleveland Contained in 

His Last Annual Message. 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6.—Mr. Livingston (Dem. Ga.,) asked in the House to-day unanimous 

consent for consideration of the following joint resolution relative to the British Venezuela-Guiana 

boundary dispute: 

Whereas, In the present enlightened age of the world, when international disputes in general, and more 

particularly those pertaining to boundary, are in constant process of adjustment by joint commission of by outside 

arbitration; and 

Whereas. Since the existing boundary dispute in Guiana, between Great Britain and Venezuela, ought not to 

constitute an exception to the general rule, but should more naturally come within the scope and range of modern 

international precedent and practice, in that it turns exclusively upon simple and readily ascertainable historical facts; 

and 

Whereas, Since it would be extremely gratifying to all peace-loving peoples, and particularly to the impartial 

friends of both parties to see this long-standing and disquieting boundary dispute in Guiana adjusted in a manner 

just and honorable alike to both, to the end that possible international complications be avoided and American 

public law and traditions maintained; there fore, be it 

Resolved, That the President’s suggestion made in his last annual message to this body, namely, that Great 

Britain and Venezuela refer their dispute as to boundary limits in Guiana to friendly arbitration, be most earnestly 

recommended to the favorable consideration of both the parties in interest. 

Mr. Sayers (Dem., Texas) asked the reasons for the passage of the resolution, saying he did not 

see why Congress shou1d be putting its hands into the affairs of other countries. 

Mr. Livingston said the necessity lay in the condition of the dispute between Great Britain and 

Venezuela, which, having continued for a period of nearly seventy years, had reached a culminating 

point. The substance of the resolution, he said, was in harmony with the Monroe doctrine, and with 

the policy of the Government. The dispute in question could no longer remain open without very 

serious consequences to South American republics. 

It not only directly threatened the hopeless dismemberment of Venezuela, but indirectly 

menaced the political autonomy of one or two other trans-Caribbean neighbors of the United States. 

This Government could not afford to be indifferent to a controversy like this. The possession of the 

mouth of the Orinoco River and its tributaries in such a power as Great Britain would in a very few 

years revolutionize the commerce and political institutions of at least three South American 

republics. 

Venezuela had been asking Great Britain for half a century to submit her claim to friendly 

arbitration, but, steadily declining al overtures, Great Britain has gone on absorbing territory in the 

valley of the Orinoco and on the Atlantic coast until she now occupied an area west of the Esequibo 

River twice as large as the State of New-York. It was well known, said Mr. Livingston, that Great 

29


Britain had no title to territory in Guiana other than that derived from Holland in 1814, and from 

that date back to 1640 the Esequibo River was universally regarded as the divisional line between 

Spain and Holland. 

The aggressions of Great Britain, he said, could not be justified; to do so would be to unsettle, if 

not invalidate, the title to more than half the public domain of the United States. There was no more 

territory on the American continent open to conquest and occupancy by European powers. 

Venezuela unable to repel these bold aggressions upon her territory, had appealed to the moral 

sense of the civilized world, and our Government, said Mr. Livingston, had not been indifferent to 

those appeals. 

The executive department had more than once tendered its good offices, and had even gone so 

far as to extend its services as arbitrator, if acceptable to both parties. Spain. It is understood, had 

made similar overtures, and no less than ten South American republics had addressed the British 

Government in like sense. 

But Great Britain, ready and willing enough to submit her boundary disputes, and United States 

to arbitration, had persistently denied to Venezuela what she had ever been ready to ask of stronger 

powers. For the honor of the great English-speaking race, and for the credit of Christian civilization, 

Mr. Livingston said he hoped Great Britain might reconsider her course in this matter, and agree to 

submit her claim to arbitration. 

“Even at this moment,” he said, “there is understood to be a special envoy in this capital bearing 

a petition signed by a majority of the British House of Commons, praying the President of the 

United States agree to submit all differences between that country and this to friendly arbitration. 

That is praiseworthy and commendable. But why not begin the good work by petitioning their own 

Government at St. James to accede to Venezuela’s standing offer to refer the Guiana boundary 

dispute to the decision of arbitration? 

“Then the Parliament of Great Britain might, with entire consistency, and with a conscious 

rectitude of purpose, ask this Government to refer all its differences with England to arbitration.” 

Mr. Dingley (Rep., Me.,) asked if the matter had not better be left with the Executive. It seemed 

to him to be establishing a mischievous precedent. He could see no good in it and did not like it, but 

would make no objection to the passage of the resolution. 

Mr. Hitt (Rep., Ill.,) said that there were precedents for the proposed action, where Congress, in 

response to suggestions by Presidents and Secretaries of State, had expressed its sense of approval of 

the principle of arbitration. He objected to the form of the resolution, saying that it amounted 

almost to a command. 

No objection, however, was made to the consideration of the joint resolution, and it was agreed 

to. 


- 24 - 

VENEZUELA BOUNDARY DISPUTE 

The President’s Recommendation to Arbitrate Is Approved 

30


WASIHINGT0N Feb. 21.—The President has approved the joint resolution of Congress 

relative to the British Guiana and Venezuela boundary dispute, which declares that the President’s 

suggestion made in his last annual message that Great Britain and Venezuela should refer their 

dispute to friendly arbitration, be earnestly recommended to the favorable consideration of both 

parties in interest. 

While the British Government will undoubtedly learn officially of this formal declaration of the 

United States, it is doubtful if any stronger representation of our attitude in the matter can be made 

than has already been insistently pressed by Ambassador Bayard under instructions issued by 

Secretary Gresham. 

This territorial dispute, involving the contest of territory in which valuable gold deposits have 

been discovered and of which Great Britain has taken possession, made the subject of diplomatic 

correspondence for ten years or more, without the slightest indication of a definite termination. 


- 25 - 

British Guiana Is Not In Arms 

LONDON, March 5.—The Foreign Office has no knowledge of the report published in a New- 

York newspaper, in an alleged special dispatch, of British troops having been massed on the frontier 

of British Guiana. If troops have been massed there, which is not believed, the movement was not 

made in pursuance of orders from the London Government, as the so-called dispatch asserts as no 

such orders have been given. 

[6 March 1895] 

- 26 - 


Ambassador Bayard’s Influence for an Amicable Settlement 

WASHINGTON, March 6.—It appears from the annual volume of Foreign Relations, devoted 

to diplomatic correspondence of the United States for the past year, which will be published shortly, 

that the great bulk of Ambassador Bayard’s work since he went to London has been devoted to the 

encroachments of Great Britain on Venezuelan territory. 

This question has had Mr. Bayard’s unceasing attention under instructions from his 

Government, and to the exclusion of all other vexed matters, except that of Bluefields, he has 

pressed for an amicable settlement of the British Guiana-Venezuela boundary dispute. 

Although Great Britain some years ago declined to submit the controversy to friendly 

arbitration, when suggested by the United States, it is understood that a year ago Mr. Bayard 

informed the British Government that, upon representations of Venezuela of the injustice of the 

31


continued encroachments, this country looked upon the matter with deeper concern than heretofore 

and felt impelled to persist more strenuously in its effort to prevent probable disturbance on this 

continent, involving a weak and friendly neighbor, who properly looked to the United States for sup 

port 

This is about as far as Ambassador Bayard could go without declaring that the United States was 

ready to suspend diplomatic relations. The correspondence will show that Mr. Bayard’s persistence 

has modified Great Britain’s attitude considerably, and that the long controversy is in a fair way to 

reach a termination satisfactory to all concerned. 

[7 March 1895] 

- 27 - 

GREAT BRITAIN AND VENEZUELA 

Sir Edward Grey’s Statement of the Dispute About Boundary 

LONDON, March 14.—In the House of Commons to-day Sir Edward Grey, Parliamentary 

Secretary to the Foreign Office, said, in reply to a question, that Great Britain had no diplomatic 

representative at Caracas, the capital of Venezuela. British interests there, he said, had been for some 

time in charge of the German representative. 

The British Government was ready to take steps for an amicable arrangement of the differences 

existing between the two countries, and had communicated that fact to Venezuela in 1890 and again 

in 1893. 

The latter communication had never been answered by Venezuela, and Great Britain must 

therefore maintain the provisional boundary settled upon, which, however, does not embrace the 

whole of the British claim. 

Venezuela has been informed that Great Britain is willing to submit the question of possession 

of territory outside of the Schomberg line to arbitration, but that she could not agree to arbitration 

in regard to territory which had long been settled as part of the British colony. 

[15 March 1895] 

- 28 - 

DIFFICULTIES OF VENEZUELA 

Great Britain Insisting on Proper Reparation for Arrests 

LONDON, March 18.—In the House of Commons to-day Sir George Baden-Powell, 

Conservative, asked it the Government had fixed a date for the initiation of measures against 

Venezuela in the event of her failure to give satisfaction for the arrest and detention of a number of 

British Guiana policemen. 

32


Sir Edward Grey, Parliamentary Secretary for the Foreign Office, replied that it was impossible 

to make a statement in regard to the question at the present time, but he declared that the matter 

would not be dropped until proper reparation was made by Venezuela. 

Sir Edward Grey further said that no progress had been made toward resuming diplomatic 

relations with Venezuela. 

[19 March 1895] 

- 29 - 

VENEZUELA AND GREAT BRITAIN 

Congress Made Difficult Arbitration of the Boundary Dispute 

WASHINGTON, March 21.—Gossipy persons determined to promote activity in the State 

Department, have conveyed the impression that the Administration is to encourage in Venezuela the 

hope that the boundary dispute with Great Britain will be soon settled by arbitration. 

What course the Administration may take for the benefit of Venezuela without embarrassment 

to the United States it is not easy to see. Congress expressed the opinion, by a joint resolution, that 

the United States should recommend to Great Britain arbitration of the boundary question. But the 

same Congress refused to appropriate $425,000 for an arbitration to which the United States 

submitted, which was won by Great Britain, and which we have repudiated. Congress not only 

refused to appropriate a sum which would have settled the dispute before the arbitration, but 

refused also to appropriate money for the expenses of a commission to agree upon terms of a 

settlement. 

Under such circumstances it is doubtful whether Great Britain will receive cordially any 

suggestion to have the Venezuela boundary arbitrated. If the United Status is to take any part in the 

matter, Great Britain is in a position to express doubts about good faith, and determination to abide 

by the findings of an arbitrator. 

The Congress that refused to permit a settlement approved by the President and by Secretary 

Gresham exhibited its stupidity and ignorance in pushing through the resolution urging arbitration. 

The body was evidently in favor of arbitration if it could be sure that it would go against the other 

party. 

— 

Col. Angel Polibio Chaves of Ecuador, who recently attended a celebration held by 

representatives of several Central and South American republics in Venezuela, arrived in this city 

yesterday on the Philadelphia from La Guayra. In speaking of affairs in Venezuela, he said: 

When I left, political affairs in Venezuela were becoming exciting. The trouble rose over the dismissal of the 

French and Belgian Ministers. Many of the people were opposed to President Crespo, and even the Congress was 

divided, there being a strong opposition to the Government. The administration was considered to be very poor, 

and was held accountable for the poor condition of business in the country. 

The country is getting poorer and poorer. Then Crespo became friendly with ex-President Guzman Blanco, 

who is hated and feared by most of the people. The people were on the verge of starting another revolution to turn 

out Gen. Crespo. He is very strong with the army, and any such revolution would be doubtful of success. 

33


But the trouble over the disputed boundary with England and the dismissal of the French and Belgian Ministers 

changed political action. It was felt that the dignity of the country had been outraged by their conduct. 

The people became greatly excited, and there was danger that personal violence would be done to the Ministers. 

The matter was discussed by the people and in the newspapers. The excitement had reached such a high pitch that 

President Crespo placed a military guard about the residences of the Ministers, and also caused the arrest and 

imprisonment of a number of people. He thought such a course necessary to prevent an open outbreak. It was 

thought for a time that the people would kill the Ministers. 

They are determined to sustain Crespo in his action in dismissing them, no matter what the consequences may 

be, even if they are forced to fight. 

They feel profoundly grateful to the people and the Congress of this country for the stand they have taken in 

upholding Venezuela’s claim to arbitration. They say that the United States is the only country that can prevent 

England from swallowing up Venezuela and other South and Central American republics. 

They bless the Monroe doctrine, and were stirred profoundly by the speeches in Congress at Washington 

demanding arbitration. They are now circulating a petition of thanks to be sent to those Congressmen who 

championed their cause. 

[23 March 1895] 

- 30 - 

VENEZUELA’S MARTIAL SPIRIT 

The People Will Fight Rather than Yield Territory to England. 

WASHINGTON, April 6.—Notwithstanding the expressed opinion of State Department and 

British officials that nothing but peace may come from the Venezuelan boundary dispute, those 

familiar with the temper of the Venezuelan Government and people declare that Venezuela will go 

to war if Great Britain retains its present attitude and refuses to submit to arbitration the right to the 

territory which Venezuela claims has been usurped by British Guiana. This, in the face of the 

overwhelming disparity of force between the two contestants and the apparent hopelessness of 

Venezuela’s entering upon such a struggle unaided. 

There is no question that Venezuela, in the event of trouble between herself and Great Britain, 

would look to the United States for moral, financial and material support, but Venezuela insists that 

self-respect will not permit her to remain passive one minute after it becomes clearly evident that 

Great Britain purposes retaining possession of the disputed country. 

Venezuela contains a population of two and a half million people. Her army on a peace footing 

does not exceed 8,000 men, but it is claimed she could in an emergency place 100,000 troops in the 

field within sixty days. 

Many of these troops are veterans who have seen service in the several rebellions in the country 

during the last few decades, and her military force, therefore, would be one not to be despised. The 

city of Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, is situated so far inland as to be safe from the attacks of a 

hostile fleet. 

The ports of La Guayra, Maracaibo, and Port Barima would be, however, it the mercy of any 

strong naval power, and their destruction would be a serious embarrassment to the commercial 

interests of the republic. 

La Guayra is an important port, which is connected with the outside world by lines of 

steamships to the United States, Spain, England, France, Germany, Italy, and other European 

34


countries. Not infrequently as many as twenty and thirty large merchant vessels swing at one time at 

their moorings in the harbor while receiving or discharging freight. 

[7 April 1895] 

- 31 - 

Venezuela Has Not Replied to Britain 

LONDON, April 8.—Replying to a question by Sir George Baden-Powell, Sir Edward Grey said 

that the Government had not yet received any response from Venezuela in regard to England’s 

demand for an explanation of the recent insult to the British flag in British South American territory. 

[9 April 1895] 

- 32 - 

TEMPER OF VENEZUELANS 

A Church Will Stand in the Way of Britain’s Advance 

THE MESSAGE OF PRESIDENT CRESPO 

Popular Expression of Gratefulness for the Resolution Adopted 

by the North American Republic 

WASHINGTON, April 9.—Advices received from Venezuela state that the Chief Magistrate of 

the Amacuro region has been directed by the Caracas Ministry to erect a church on the banks of the 

Amacura River, which is to form the nucleus of a new settlement. 

This settlement will be situated on the river directly opposite to that now occupied by the 

British, and is intended as an intimation that Venezuela regards that part of the territory as her own, 

and that the British colonists must not encroach upon it. 

The Venezuelan Government and people appear to have accepted the action of the United 

States Congress in passing a resolution favoring arbitration as indicating a sure and certain issue out 

of all their boundary troubles. 

On Feb. 6 the House of Representatives adopted the resolution offered by Mr. Livingston of 

Georgia and favorably reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, “that the President’s 

suggestion made in his last annual message to this body, namely, that Great Britain and Venezuela 

refer their dispute as to boundary limit in Guiana to friendly arbitration be most earnestly 

recommended to the favorable considerations at both the parties in interest.” 

The resolution subsequently passed the Senate and was approved by President Cleveland, Feb. 

21. March 29 the Venezuelan Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Rejas, sent to the Venezuelan 

Congress, which is now in session, the following communication, addressed to the President of the 

Congress: 

35


I have the honor to present to your high body, through this communication, inasmuch as the state of my health 

prevents me from doing it personally. a message from the President of the United States of Venezuela in relation to 

the noble attitude which the First Magistrate and the Congress of the great Republic of the North have just assumed 

regarding the pending question between Venezuela and England by reason of the boundary with the Demerara 

colony. I renew to the honorable Congress of the Republic the testimony of my profoundest respect. 

The communication to which Secretary Rejas referred was addressed by President Crespo to the 

Venezuelan Senate and House of Representatives, and was in these words: 

MESSAGE BY VENEZUELAN PRESIDENT CRESPO TO THE VNEZUELAN CONGRESS 

[29 March 1895] 

The high powers of the United States have just given on the occasion or the pending question between 

Venezuela and England a proof of the extent to which the principle of human justice prevails in the spirit of the 

great northern people. The Chief Magistrate of that powerful Republic, being persuaded at the peril which involves 

the American interests in the prolongation of a conflict of so grievous a nature, expressed in his annual message to 

Congress a strong wish and the disposition of inducing Great Britain to put an end to the dispute through the 

arbitration earnestly proposed by Venezuela. 

The American Congress in February last, as a consequence of the wise advice contained in President 

Cleveland’s annual message, passed a resolution to this effect which has been inserted in the preliminary edition of 

the Yellow Book of this year. The terms of this resolution disclose the noblest interest in having this long 

controversy settled in conformity with the principles of justice and reason. Therein it is earnestly recommended that 

the two contending parties adopt the course indicated by the President of the United States in order peacefully to 

settle the dispute, as has been suggested by Venezuela. 

The legislative act referred to was approved by both the branches of the American Congress, and his Excellency 

President Cleveland affixed his seal thereto February 21. Such tokens of the spirit of justice with which the 

overshadowing question at the Guiana boundary is studied and considered by the Chief Magistrate and legislators of 

the great Republic of the north requires from Venezuela a significant act of special gratitude which only you can 

sanction so as to interpret the thought of the whole republic. I am sure that this idea will have the most enthusiastic 

acceptance in the hearts of the worthy legislators of my country. 

Both branches of Venezuelan Congress, when the foregoing communications were read to them, 

at once adopted a joint resolution expressing their hearty appreciation of the friendly interest 

manifested in their dispute with Great Britain by the American people, as expressed by President 

Cleveland and Congress. This resolution will be forwarded to Minister Andrade and by him 

presented to Secretary Gresham. 

The Caracas papers received to-day say that the enthusiasm of the enthusiasm of the 

Venezuelans as a result of the friendly attitude of the American people is so great that the citizens of 

the several States will forward to Mr. Andrade, also to be presented to President Cleveland, 

testimonials containing the names of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans. 

[10 April 1895] 

- 33 - 

GRATITUDE OF VENEZUELANS 

A Testimonial Accompanied by Expressions Against England 

36


ATLANTA, Ga., May 10.—Congressman Livingston has received a handsomely designed 

testimonial signed by Gen. Medardo Bello, Juan Velasquez. Isodoro Flores, and several other 

distinguished Venezuelans expressing their gratitude for the stand taken by Mr. Livingston in behalf 

of Venezuela. The communication reads: “Against England, that eternal usurper of territories 

belonging to nations less strong than herself.” The testimonial further expresses the hope that the 

Guayana question may be settled by arbitration, and if not, Venezuela shall show England that her 

sons are willing to die with honor for the protection of their national dignity. 

[11 May 1895] 

- 34 - 


Details of the Difficulty . . . of Crespo’s Administration 

WASHINGTON, May 21.—The statement made by Sir Edward Grey in the British Parliament, 

yesterday, that no explanation had been received from Venezuela with reference to the hauling down 

of the British flag and imprisonment of her Majesty’s police officers, will be better understood when 

read in the light of the following facts: 

In November last several Venezuelans were engaged in cutting wood on the right bank of the 

Cuwuni River. Inspector Barnes of the British police force ordered them away. They refused to 

obey, claiming that they were on Venezuelan soil. They were notified that if they remained after a 

certain date they would be expelled. They continued to remain, and were driven across the river. 

Thereupon a body of Venezuelan police went over to Inspector Barnes’s headquarters and 

arrested him and several of his men. They were taken to Upata, in the State of Bolivar, and there 

released by order of the Caracas Government. Inspector Barnes claimed that his house was entered 

by the Venezuelans and some of its contents stolen. 

At the request of the Venezuelan authorities, he made and estimate of the damage suffered by 

him, and was immediately reimbursed. Inspector Barnes reported his attest to his superior officers. 

The British Government demanded an explanation through the German Minister at Caracas, 

diplomatic relations between Great Britain and Venezuela being suspended. Up to the present time, 

the Caracas Government has failed to furnish the explanation demanded. 

[22 May 1895] 

- 35 - 

THE VENEZUELAN CONTEST 

Its Progress As Described h the “Official Yellow Book” 

THE UNITED STATES A TRUE FRIEND 

Great Britain and Venezuela End Their Differences 

Without Appealing to Arms as a Remedy 

37


Important official news regarding the controversy between England and Venezuela has just 

reached this city, and is made public through the Venezuelan Yellow Book. This volume is the 

report of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the National Government and corresponds with the 

annual report of our State Department. It contains full details of Venezuela’s attitude toward 

England’s aggressions in the Guayanas, and shows that our little neighbor on the shores of the 

Caribbean is determined to hold her territory at all hazards. The document in question shows 

firmness, combined with discretion, and reflects great credit upon the statesmanship and patriotism 

of Dr. P. Ezequiel Rojas, who has been at the head of the Department of Foreign Affairs for the 

past three years, and under whom the Guyana question has assumed its present phase. 

Referring to the boundary controversy, the Yellow Book first calls attention to the fact that the 

Congress of the United States has done its utmost to bring the question to arbitration; in fact, has 

even gone so far as to request England to settle the dispute in this way. It also states that the press 

of Venezuela and all English corporations doing business there have also endeavored to bring about 

the same end. Even the Pope has interested himself in the controversy and offered his friendly 

services. 

Other important steps taken by the Venezuelan Government were its efforts to prevent the 

circulation of incorrect maps of the country, and a request to the Washington Government that the 

international office would make such changes in the maps published by England as would do justice 

to the rights of Venezuela. Full and detailed explanations are given of the Guyana incident, which 

the Venezuelan press has been discussing so freely. The notes that have passed between England 

and Venezuela regarding the route from Barima to the Upper Guyana are also given in full. 

The report closes with these significant words: “After having explained all the measures taken by 

the present Government in this important matter from the day of its inauguration, the English have 

not advanced one step into the territory of the republic, and it is impossible for them to do so 

without having a collision with the Venezuelan authorities.” 

[3 June 1895] 

- 36 - 

VENEZUELA’S BOUNDARY DISPUTE 

WASHINGTON, June 8.—The Venezuelan officials regard the dispute with Great Britain over 

the Guiana boundary question as definitely settled by the American Congress resolution that it be 

referred to arbitration. 

Formal expression was given to this belief by Señor J. Calucano Mathieu, President of the 

Venezuelan Senate, in his address to that body upon the adjournment of the National Legislature a 

few days ago. 

Señor Mathieu referred to the interest manifested by the American Congress, and expressed the 

opinion that Great Britain now had no alternative but to be governed by the wishes of the American 

people. 

The efforts which the Cleveland Administration has made through Mr. Bayard for a peaceful 

settlement of the controversy are also highly appreciated by the Venezuelans. 

38


[9 June 1895] 

- 37 - 

VENEZUELA’S HOMAGE TO GRESHAM 

The National Flag at Half Mast on All Public Buildings 

WASHINGTON, June 11.—Venezuela’s tribute to Secretary Gresham has been received in the 

following form, addressed to Señor José Andrade, Minister of Venezuela to Washington, and signed 

by the Minister of Foreign Affairs: 

Caracas, May 29, 1895. 

Sir: Yesterday, at a late hour, I received your telegram, announcing the death of his Excellency, 

Mr. Gresham. This calamity must sensibly affect all who, in the last two years, have followed with 

any degree of interest the course of the foreign policy of the United States, in which that 

distinguished Statesman was displaying the great gifts of his intellect. 

Venezuela is necessarily one of the countries of America in which this event has caused the 

greatest sorrow, inasmuch as that noble gentleman had displayed, on various occasions and in an 

eloquent manner, the cordial feelings by which he was actuated toward this republic. 

Please convey the expression of these sincere sentiments to the Department of State, in order 

that it may be communicated to his Excellency, President Cleveland. 

The national flag has this day been ordered to be kept at half mast for three days on all public 

buildings. This official demonstration is made in memory of the efforts made by Mr. Gresham to 

secure a just and amicable settlement of the Venezuelan-British dispute. 

[12 June 1895] 

- 38 - 


Arbitration Will Be Accepted Only Within Certain Limits 

LONDON, June 17.—In the House of Commons to-day Sir Edward Grey, Under Foreign 

Secretary, said that in January last United States Ambassador Bayard informed Lord Kimberley, 

Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that the United States Government would gladly lend its good 

offices to arbitrate the dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela. 

The position was explained to Mr. Bayard, and the British Government was ready to submit to 

arbitration within certain limits, but they could not agree in regard to the extensive reference upon 

which Venezuela insisted. 

[18 June 1895] 

39


- 39 - 

AT THE NATIONAL CAPITAL 

WASHINGTON, June 24.—Americans who assume that the change of Ministry in England will 

remove the danger of complications growing out of British aggressions in Venezuela unquestionably 

will see their mistake before Lord Salisbury’s Government has long been in power. Examination of 

the facts in connection with the Guiana boundary dispute shows that Salisbury has always favored 

British encroachments on Venezuelan soil. As far back as 1880, Lord Salisbury, in a note to the 

Venezuelan Minister at London, claimed not only all the territory within the old “Schomburgk line” 

but a vast and fertile region far beyond it. 

Referring to Venezuela’s claim that the Essequibo River was the ancient line between the Dutch 

and Spanish possessions, and that it could not be considered as a boundary, he said Great Britain 

already had some 40,000 subject living west of that river, and that it could not be considered as a 

possible boundary. It was convenient for his Lordship to ignore the fact that every one of these 

40,000 British subjects had settled west of the Essequibo, knowing full well that it was Venezuelan 

territory. These settlers encroached upon Venezuelan soil with the knowledge that such action was 

in line with the British policy of extending British interests in that region. 

Lord Salisbury’s past propositions to Venezuela are regarded in that country as much less 

favorable even than those offered by Lord Rosebery. William L. Scruggs, late Minister of the United 

States to Venezuela, writing on the subject of British aggressions in Venezuela, has this to say of the 

proceedings with which Lord Salisbury has been closely connected: 

“Previous to the year 1840 Great Britain had not extended her occupancy beyond the Pomaron, 

nor even intimated a purpose to lay claim to any territory beyond that river. Suddenly, in the latter 

part of that year, she made an attempt to extend her occupancy westward and southward, as far as 

the mouth of the Barima River, where she arbitrarily fixed the starting point of a frontier line known 

as ‘the Schomburgk line.’ 

“In 1844 she disclaimed this line and proposed what afterward became known as ‘the Aberdeen 

line,’ beginning near the mouth of the Pomaron River. In 1881 she again removed the starting point 

of a divisional line to a distance of twenty-nine miles west of the Moroco River, generally referred to 

as ‘Lord Granville’s line.’ 

“In 1886 she again shifted position and proposed what is known as ‘the first Rosebery line,’ 

beginning west of the Guaima River. In 1890 she shifted position again and proposed what is known 

as ‘the Salisbury line,’ beginning at the mouth of the Amacura River—thus claiming, control of the 

main outlet of the Orinoco. 

“And finally in 1893, still advancing westward and southward into what had never before been 

disputed as Venezuelan territory, she proposed a boundary line from the southwest of the Amacura 

River, running so as to include the headwaters of the Cumano and the Sierra of Usupano.” 

These facts ought to be convincing that the new Salisbury Cabinet will have nothing to offer to 

Venezuela in the way of an honorable settlement of the boundary dispute. They may also give rise to 

the apprehension that the value of the Monroe doctrine may be put to the test in the next year. 

When Lord Salisbury last was at the head of the British Ministry he displayed a willingness to cooperate 

with this Government in the prevention of illegal sealing in Bering Sea which was directly at 

variance with Lord Rosebery’s subsequent attitude. With Salisbury again at the British helm, there 

40


may be a little more fairness in connection with the attempt to protect the seal herd from 

extermination. The silver men will look to the new Ministry for signs favorable to an international 

conference, but Americans, who are guided largely in their views by the teachings of the past, will 

not expect the new British Government to take any step which shall involve a radical change in 

British methods. 

[25 June 1895] 

- 40 - 

AT THE NATIONAL CAPITAL 

WASHINGTON, June 29.—There seems to be a curious expectation on the part of South and 

Central American diplomats that the new British Cabinet will be more favorable to an adjustment of 

the Venezuelan boundary dispute by arbitration than was its predecessor. This expectation is 

apparently based upon the supposed friendship toward the United States of the two statesmen into 

whose hands this question will naturally fall—Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the 

Colonies, and Mr. U. N. Curzon, Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Each of these gentlemen has 

an American wife, Mr. Chamberlain having married the daughter of President Cleveland’s first 

Secretary of War, Mr. Endicott of Massachusetts, and Mr. Curzon having recently married the 

daughter of Mr. L. Zelter of Chicago. 

The diplomatic correspondence in regard to the encroachments of British Guiana on Venezuela 

has reached a point where it is thought the friendly intervention of the United States could be 

accepted. That intervention has been strongly exerted by Mr. Bayard in favor of arbitration, and it is 

regarded as quite possible that the incoming Government may not find itself embarrassed by the 

objections which the outgoing Administration had interposed to the adoption of this course. 

Whether or not these anticipations have any solid foundation in fact, they are undoubtedly 

entertained, and it is further hinted that the Nicaragua-Corinto affair may have, indirectly, some 

bearing on the settlement of the Venezuelan boundary question. The little republics of South and 

Central America are not by any means harmonious, and though sentimentally they express regret at 

lesson given Nicaragua by Great Britain in regard to respecting the flag or a foreign nationality, yet, 

as a matter of fact, there is said to have been some quiet gratification on the assumption that, as 

Great Britain had been permitted to assert its national dignity in this matter, it might not find it so 

difficult to waive points in the Venezuelan controversy. This is undoubtedly a curious intermixing of 

two apparently entirely dissimilar incidents, but the fact that they are connected together in this 

manner is indisputable. 

[30 June 1895] 

41


- 41 - 


Fears that the New British Cabinet May Make War Inevitable 

WASHINGTON, Aug. 5.—The accession of Lord Salisbury to the head of the British Cabinet is 

causing a good deal of anxiety among the friends of Venezuela. They fear that it means a return to 

the policy of territorial aggression against Venezuela which was pursued by the English under the 

former Conservative Ministry, with even more insolence than under the Liberal administration. 

Lord Salisbury was at the head of the Government when diplomatic relations were broken off 

between Great Britain and Venezuela, and the policy of arbitration, which had been encouraged by 

Lord Granville, was repudiated by the new Government. 

President Guzman Blanco went to England in 1884, and negotiations for submitting the 

boundary dispute to arbitration were so far advanced in June, 1885, that the convention was about 

to be signed. 

A memorandum of the Foreign Office of Venezuela, submitted to the United States 

representative at Caracas on June 15, 1887, declared that, “in fact, Lord Granville had accepted the 

application of arbitration to all disagreements which should arise between the two countries, 

including that on boundaries. 

In the meantime, Lord Salisbury came into office, and one of his first steps was to withdraw 

what had been agreed upon with Venezuela, while at the same time he fulfilled the promises made to 

Russia, condemning as opprobrious, the breaking of them, although they had been made by his 

predecessors.” 

The Foreign Office went on to recite that British invasions “became more and more marked 

from July, 1886, decrees being issued through the Governor of Demerara, by which the latter’s 

jurisdiction was extended from the Pomaron to the Amacuro; the grants of land made by the 

Venezuelan Government were declared to be void, if they referred to those under controversy, and, 

finally, all that territory claimed by her Majesty was declared to be British.” It was during the 

Salisbury administration also, and only a few months after the last communication, that the British 

war steamer Pylades was sent from Trinidad to La Guayra, and ordered to levy $40,000 upon the 

Venezuelan Government for subjecting two English schooners to legal process for violating 

Venezuelan law. 

The proceeding was similar to the recent levy upon Nicaragua, and seven days were given to the 

Venezuelan Government to pay the money before the application of force. The representative of 

the United States interceded for the withdrawal of the threatening note of the Governor of Trinidad 

upon he ground that it was an affront to the dignity and independence of Venezuela, and the 

Governor himself asked permission to withdraw the note and substitute a less forcible one. 

The Salisbury Government informed the Governor by telegraph that this arrangement could not 

be sanctioned, and the Venezuelans, after paying the money, filed a solemn protest with the 

diplomatic representatives of foreign countries at Caracas against the unfriendly and insulting 

attitude of the British Government. Diplomatic relations between the two countries were severed 

about that time, and have never been resumed. 

The Venezuelan people have been growing very restive under British aggressions, even under the 

Rosebery Government, and the more hot-headed have been advocating war with Great Britain in 

42


the belief that the United States would be forced to interfere. There is grave apprehension that a 

collision on the boundary, with great resulting embarrassments to this country, can no longer be 

avoided if Lord Salisbury resumes the offensive policy which he carried out under his former 

administration. 

[6 August 1895] 

- 42 - 

BRITISH GUIANA GOLD MINING 

Condition of the Colony as Viewed by Chief Justice Edward O’Malley 

WASHINGTON. Sept. 3.—The gold-mining industry of British Guiana, which is so closely 

involved in the territorial dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela, has not yet reached the 

point of assured success, according to the testimony of Sir Edward O’Malley, Chief Justice of that 

colony, who is now in Washington. Explaining his visit here as being entirely non-political, Sir 

Edward said: 

“I am simply taking a trip to get a little needed change and rest. It is delightful to get back to 

civilization once more, after sojourning among the non-progressive people of Demerara. Life in that 

country is rather tame and monotonous to an Englishman or a citizen of the United States, and 

those of us who can get away are glad to escape occasionally. I have lived in Guiana only since last 

January. The country is not in a prosperous condition. 

“Its chief industry is sugar planting, and owing to the very low prices of that product the 

business is in a deplorable state. A good many estates are closed up completely, and few of the 

planters are able to make more than a bare living. This is in spite of the fact that the Government 

gives them substantial aid by admitting farming materials free of duty, and also by helping to pay for 

the transportation of the coolie laborers, who do nearly all the plantation work. 

“Thousands of these are brought in every year, mostly from Madras, under a five years’ contract. 

When that term expires most of them remain in the country as free laborers. The natives, Indians 

and colored creoles, are too lazy for any use in the cane fields, and live in a hand-to-mouth fashion 

on the least amount of work. 

“About the only hope of better times is in the development of our gold mines, which are 

beginning to attract a great deal of attention A number of explorers have come in from Australia, 

and are so well satisfied with the prospects that they have started a number of camps, a few of which 

have begun to produce very satisfactorily.” 


- 43 - 


American Concessions Said to be in Disputed Territory, Never Used 

43


WASHINGTON, Sept 28.—The facts in regard to the Venezuelan dispute, as nearly as they can 

be ascertained from the best sources of information, are these: 

The United States is still awaiting a reply, through Secretary Bayard, to a presentation of the 

boundary dispute as laid before the United States by Venezuela and as investigated by the United 

States, which presentation was accompanied by a friendly but earnest suggestion that the matters 

thus placed in controversy should be referred to arbitration. 

The mining concession granted by Venezuela to an American syndicate, which, it has been 

suggested, may involve the United States in Venezuela’s quarrel with Great Britain, is no new thing, 

and plays no part in the controversy. This concession was originally granted eleven years ago, when 

Gen. Crespo, the present Chief Executive of the republic, filled that office. 

The parties to whom the concession was given for unexplained reasons did not make use of the 

privilege, and a few years later, during the Presidency of Guzman Blanco, it was given to another 

American syndicate, which, like its predecessor, allowed it to lapse. It is now understood that the 

principal members of the present syndicate are among those to whom the concession was originally 

granted. 

The Venezuelan Legation have no information, official or otherwise, regarding the purpose of 

the syndicate to develop the territory embraced in the concession. It contains 15,000 square miles, 

and is about half the size of some of the States in this country. It is rich in minerals, hard woods and 

petroleum. A part of the land lay, at the time the was granted, in the territory in dispute between 

Great Britain and Venezuela and it is now said that since Great Britain has extended her boundary 

further into Venezuela’s domain the entire tract is claimed by the British Government 

As far back as 1891, the British Minister at Venezuela, Mr. Mansfield, protested against the 

granting of the charter by Venezuela for the foregoing reasons. It would be not unlikely, therefore, 

that Great Britain would protest vigorously against any occupation of the country by the American 

syndicate. But, inasmuch as neither of the American syndicates has ever attempted to expend a 

dollar in breaking ground and taking possession, this contingency seems a remote one. 

The Venezuelan Minister, Mr. Andrade, was asked by a United Press reporter to-day what 

protection against British aggressions would be given by his country to the syndicate. He replied that 

he knew nothing regarding the matter, and that everything would depend upon the character of the 

concession. If, in this concession, Venezuela had agreed to protect the syndicate in its rights, it 

would do so beyond question. Should not this protection be stipulated, however, he assumed that 

the syndicate would occupy the territory at its own risk. 


- 44 - 


America Counsels Arbitration and the English Are Excited 

LONDON, Oct. 3.—The Westminster Gazette, in an article under the caption “Turn About Is Fair 

Play,” says: 

44


“The other day Lord Salisbury sent an ultimatum to China, and now, according to dispatches received from 

Washington, Ambassador Bayard has been instructed to notify Great Britain that unless the Venezuelan question is 

submitted to arbitration within ninety days the United States Government will enforce the Monroe doctrine. It is to 

be hoped that if settlement of the question can be hurried up Lord Salisbury will do it, but surely President 

Cleveland cannot wish to rush us out of just claims.” 

The St. James’s Gazette says: 

“Isn’t it awful? But it might be still more awful if we only knew exactly what the blessed Monroe doctrine was 

or what on earth the United States Government has got to do with a quarrel between Great Britain and another 

independent State.” 

The Post will to-morrow say that inquiries made at the American Embassy elicited the 

information that nothing was known there of the report that Ambassador Bayard had been 

instructed by his Government to notify Great Britain that unless the Venezuelan question shall be 

submitted to arbitration within ninety days the United States. Government would enforce the 

Monroe doctrine. 

The Embassy officials added that no such letters of instruction had been received. The Post says 

that the report could hardly be treated seriously. 


- 45 - 

MONROE DOCTRINE AND BRITAIN 

A Powerful Presentation of the Claims of Venezuela Against the 

Aggressions of the Disputant 

WASHINGTON, Oct. 4.—The idea conveyed in recent dispatches sent from Washington that 

the Secretary of State has sent an ultimatum to Great Britain on the subject of the Venezuela 

boundary line dispute is entirely misleading. The State Department has not been instructed to go to 

this extreme. 

Congress alone can authorize ultimatums, and it has not yet decided that Great Britain’s 

aggressions in Venezuela call for an attitude or the part of the United States Government which an 

ultimatum would accurately represent. 

The dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela regarding the boundary line has occasioned 

much interest in the United States. In his last annual message, the President referred to it in these 

words: 

“The boundary of British Guiana still remains in dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela. Believing that 

its early settlement on some just basis alike honorable to both parties is in the line of our established policy to 

remove from this hemisphere all causes of difference with powers beyond the sea. I shall renew the efforts 

heretofore made to bring about a restoration of diplomatic relations between the disputants, and to induce a 

reference to arbitration, a resort which Great Britain so conspicuously favors in principle and respects in practice, 

and which is earnestly sought by her weaker adversary.” 

45


The House, in February last, passed a joint resolution, introduced by Representative Livingston 

of Georgia, urging that the President’s suggestion regarding this dispute be recommended to both 

Great Britain and Venezuela. The Senate adopted this resolution, after making slight amendments. 

The State Department lost no time in bringing this recommendation to the notice of the British 

Government. Great Britain replied that her right to a part of the territory in question could be 

submitted to arbitration, but that the question of the ownership of the other portion involved in the 

dispute could not be thus adjudicated. This reply was unsatisfactory, and Secretary Olney has 

forwarded another dispatch to Ambassador Bayard, in which the desirability of an arbitration 

covering every point in the long-drawn-out controversy between Great Britain and Venezuela is 

presented in a forcible manner. 

As might have been, the question of the Monroe doctrine figured largely in the Secretary’s 

communication. More than six months ago, Mr. Olney, who was then Attorney General, made an 

exhaustive investigation of the successive boundary lines dividing British Guiana from Venezuela, 

claimed by the British Government. Every available paper and bit of diplomatic correspondence 

between the two countries bearing upon the question was carefully examined by Mr. Olney. It is 

claimed by those who read Mr. Olney’s report that it constituted a very able defense of the Munroe 

doctrine. Mr. Olney’s latest letter to Ambassador Bayard is in line with the determination of the 

Administration to insist upon the application of the Monroe doctrine to the case in hand. The more 

the case is studied by the officers of the Government, the more impressed are they with the strength 

of the Venezuelan position. 

For more than fifty years Venezuela has been asking Great Britain to submit her claim to 

friendly arbitration. Declining all these overtures, England has gone on absorbing territory in the 

Valley of the Orinoco and on the Atlantic Coast, until she now occupies an area west of the 

Essequibo River more than twice as large as the State of New York. 

Great Britain derived her title to territory in Guiana from Holland in 1814. For a century and 

three-quarters the Essequibo was recognized as the rightful boundary between the old Spanish and 

Holland possessions. There have been no concessions since 1814, and in 1810 Venezuela succeeded 

to the title held by Spain. There is no justification for Great Britain’s aggressions west of the 

Essequibo, and it is not surprising that the British Foreign Office should refuse to arbitrate the 

entire question. 

Secretary Olney’s latest communication to Mr. Bayard on the subject embodies all the points 

developed by him in his recent study of the boundary question. It leaves no room for doubt that this 

Government regards the attitude of Great Britain as antagonistic to the principles of the Monroe 

doctrine, and conveys in diplomatic language the intimation that the refusal of Great Britain to 

accede to the appeal of Venezuela may lead to serious complications. The present position of the 

Administration regarding the Venezuelan difficultly does not deviate in the least from that assumed 

by it when the first note was sent to Mr. Bayard on the subject. 

It is expected that all of the correspondence will be published in the near future. There is no 

doubt that if Great Britain shall persist in her refusal, an effort will be made in the next Congress to 

bring the matter to a final determination of some sort. Representative Livingston said to-day that he 

would introduce a measure when Congress convenes providing for the appointment of a joint 

committee of the Senate and House to take up this question and determine upon a policy to be 

followed by the Government. This policy, he believed, will be thoroughly in harmony with the 

declarations of the Monroe doctrine. 

46



- 46 - 

MONROE DOCTRINE AND BRITAIN 

Foreign Office Embarrassed by the State Department’s 

Protest Against Venezuelan Boundary Coercion 

WASHINGTON, Oct. 16.—A cable dispatch from London received to-night, says that the 

British Foreign Office has been made acquainted with the contents of a dispatch forwarded by 

Secretary Olney to Ambassador Bayard, bearing on the Venezuelan boundary dispute. The tone of 

this dispatch, it added, is such that the Ministry will be forced to give much time to its consideration. 

The dispatch in question is the one referred to in The New-York Times a fortnight ago, and has 

erroneously been termed an ultimatum of the United States to Great Britain. It was the second one 

written by Secretary Olney since the adjournment of Congress, and was communicated to Lord 

Salisbury by Mr. Bayard on the latter’s return from Scotland a few days ago. 

Last February the House passed a joint resolution, introduced by Representative Livingston of 

Georgia, urging that the President’s suggestion that the Venezuelan boundary difficulty be referred 

to arbitration, be recommended to both Great Britain and Venezuela. The resolution was adopted 

by the Senate with slight modifications, and the State Department immediately brought this 

recommendation to the notice of the British Government. The reply of Great Britain was that her 

rights to a part of the territory in question could be submitted to arbitration, but that the question of 

the ownership of the other portion involved in the dispute could not thus be adjudicated. 

This reply was in line with previous utterances of Great Britain on this important topic. It was, 

of course, unsatisfactory to the State Department, and Mr. Olney wrote his second note. As already 

announced in these dispatches, it embodies all the points developed by him in his recent study of the 

boundary question. 

These, in brief, are that Great Britain received her title to territory in Guiana from Holland in 

1814; that for a century a and three-quarters the Essequibo was recognized as the rightful boundary 

between the old Spanish and Holland possessions; that there have been no concessions since 1814; 

that in 1810 Venezuela succeeded t the title held by Spain. 

Mr. Olney, in his last dispatch to Mr. Bayard, made it clear that this Government regards the 

attitude of Great Britain as antagonistic to the principles at the Monroe doctrine, and that serious 

complication may fallow the refusal of Great Britain to permit the reference of the entire boundary 

question to a court of arbitration. The Secretary’s communication is understood to be so worded 

that the British Foreign Office will find it difficult to defend persistence in its present course. 

The English Government has prided itself upon its willingness to arbitrate matters of grave 

dispute with other nations. This being the case, refusal now to arbitrate the Venezuelan matter 

would be conclusive proof that this is not an ordinary boundary question, but one which directly 

affects the Monroe doctrine. 

The President and his Secretary of State are determined to uphold this doctrine against Great 

Britain or any other nation that may seek to nullity it, and Mr. Olney’s dispatch undoubtedly reveals 

this intention. 

47


It is believed here that the determined stand taken by the United States will result in the 

abandonment by Great Britain of its high-handed attitude. 

Should Lord Salisbury tall to reply to Secretary Olney’s dispatch before Congress meets, it is 

certain that an effort will be made in both houses to bring the matter to a head. Friends of the 

Administration in Washington are much gratified with its position in the Venezuelan matter, and are 

confident that it will meet with the approval of the country. 

[17 October 1895] 

- 47 - 

BRITAIN’S VENEZUELAN CLAIMS 

Schomburgk’s Line Was Only Tentative, Aberdeen Said, and 

Salisbury Must Yield to Monroe Doctrine 

WASHINGTON, Oct. 17.—Now that the attitude of this country with relation to the boundary 

dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela has been made known to the British Foreign Office, 

popular interest in the outcome of the controversy is increasing. The cable dispatch from London 

referred to in these dispatches last night bore out the assertion previously made that Secretary 

Olney’s last dispatch on the subject was calculated to develop the British position. 

The editorial in The London Times which declares that it is begging the question to assume that the 

British claim is for fresh territory, and that the British claim rests wholly upon the vindication of 

Great Britain’s original right, is regarded in Washington as significant of the reply which Lord 

Salisbury will make to Secretary Olney’s note. 

It should be borne in mind that Lord Salisbury has long been opposed to the plans submitted by 

Venezuela for bringing the boundary dispute to a head. The Schomburgk line, which has frequently 

been referred to in connection with British aggressions in Venezuela, was run in 1840 by Sir Robert 

Schomburgk, an English Commissioner, who conducted his work without the knowledge or 

concurrence of Venezuela. This line allots to Great Britain not only the entire Atlantic coast between 

the Essequibo and the Orinoco, but also a large section of fertile country in the Interior, of which 

Holland, from which Great Britain secured title to British Guiana, never laid claim. 

Several years after Schomburgk’s line had been run the British Government, under the Aberdeen 

Administration, disclaimed any intention to occupy this territory, or to claim the Schomburgk line as 

a possible boundary. Lord Aberdeen explained to the Venezuelan Government that “the so-called 

Schomburgk line” was never designed to be other than “merely tentative,” or for convenience in 

future negotiations. 

He then proposed a conventional boundary line, which, though very disadvantageous to 

Venezuela, in that it would have deprived her of an immense territory which rightfully belongs to 

her, would probably have been accepted as a compromise but for the conditions imposed. Aberdeen 

said that his Government was disposed to cede to Venezuela the territory indicated on condition 

that Venezuela would agree not to alienate any portion of it to a third power. 

As this involved an acknowledgment of territorial rights in Guiana, which Great Britain did not 

possess, it had to be rejected. In 1890 Lord Salisbury, then the English Premier, claimed not only all 

48


the territory within the old Schomburgk line, but a vast region far beyond it. He ignored the 

proposition once made by Lord Aberdeen, and declared that the Essequibo could not be considered 

as a possible boundary. Subsequently the British took formal possession of the territory within the 

Schomburgk line. This led to the severance in 1887 of diplomatic relations between Great Britain 

and Venezuela. 

Lord Salisbury, it is believed here, has not changed his views concerning the territory in question. 

If he shall accept the recommendation of Secretary Olney that the entire question be submitted to 

arbitration, it will be due to his belief that the United States means to thrust the Monroe doctrine 

into the controversy and stand by it to the bitter end. At the State Department there is little hope 

that his position will change. The Administration is determined that the British contention as 

indicated in The London Times’s editorial, that the Monroe doctrine is not involved, and therefore will 

not be discussed, shall not be permitted to stand. 

It is probable that some time will elapse before Lord Salisbury’s reply to Secretary Olney’s note 

is received. There is much commendation here of the course of the Administration and an absence 

of suggestion that it is desirous of avoiding the logical consequence of that course. It is certain that if 

no conclusion is reached before Congress assembles that body will take action designed to 

strengthen the position of the President. 

[18 October 1895] 

- 48 - 

BRITAIN AND VENEZUELA 

Evidence of a Determination to Defend the Schomburgk Line. 

MAXIM GUNS TO BE PLACED AT URUAN 

America’s First Diplomatic Definition of the Monroe Doctrine 

and First Assertion of Territorial Guardianship. 

LONDON. Oct 18.—It is ascertained on high authority that the memorandum in relation to 

Venezuelan affairs presented by Ambassador Bayard to the British Foreign Office in August last 

embodies, for the first time in diplomatic correspondence, a definition of the so-called Monroe 

doctrine, and an assertion that the United States regarded the acquisition of territory by European 

powers on the American continent as a menace to republican institutions, which would not be 

encouraged by the American people. 

It is understood that to this communication no reply beyond a formal acknowledgment has yet 

been given, but that a more detailed reply has been promised at an early date. 

The St James’ Gazette, referring to the action of the Combined Court in British Guiana in refusing 

to vote money for the purpose of purchasing Maxim guns, in accordance with the dispatch sent by 

Joseph Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the Colonies, Sept. 7, says the dispatch was followed by a 

cablegram from Mr. Chamberlain to Sir C. Cameron Lees, Governor of British Guiana, directing 

him to obtain without delay a vote for the purchase of two Maxim guns, one of them to be stationed 

at Uruan or elsewhere on the frontier where the Venezuelans may attempt to cross. The Gazette adds: 

49


“Mr. Chamberlain has decided that the frontier within the Schomburgk line shall be held by 

force, if necessary.” 

Regarding the attitude of the newspapers in British Guiana in ridiculing Mr. Chamberlain, The 

Gazette says: “Mr. Chamberlain is a better judge of the moral influence of a few Maxim guns than 

are the attorneys of absentee sugar planters.” 

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18.—The aggressive policy of the British Government in Venezuela, as 

outlined in the dispatches to-day from London, has caused excited comment in diplomatic circles. It 

is taken as an indication in some quarters that her Majesty’s Government will not, under any 

circumstances, arbitrate a foot of the territory in dispute between England and Venezuela to which 

the former lays claim. 

Whether the fortification of the frontier at Uruan will be followed by hostilities between the 

British and the Venezuelans cannot at present be foretold. Uruan is a point which is occupied by the 

forces of both Governments. The British hold the right bank of the river, and the Venezuelans the 

left. The military posts of the two Governments are situated at the junction of three rivers—the 

Cuyuni, Uruan, and Yuruari. No overt act, it is said, is likely to follow the planting of one or more 

Maxim guns on the British side of the Uruan, provided the British soldiery remain on the right bank 

of the stream, which they regard as the limit of their possessions. 

While the Venezuelans will look with strong disfavor upon Great Britain’s action, they will not, it 

is said, cross the river or so conduct themselves as to justify the British in crossing. The Venezuelan 

Government will, in all probability, send national troops to this point, but this, it is believed, will be 

a mere precautionary measure, and not with any intention of engaging the British forces. 

If the suggestion of the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, the British Secretary of State for the 

Colonies, that a road be cut from Port Barima to the Cuyuni River is adopted, the United States is 

likely to be drawn into the affair, inasmuch as the proposed road will run through a part of the 

territory recently granted by the Venezuelan Government to the American syndicate. All this 

territory is claimed by her Majesty’s Government, and this claim the Venezuelan ridicule. The 

American syndicate is making its arrangements to develop its concessions, and it is evidently 

constrained to believe that the United States Government will see that it is protected in its rights. 

The new developments in Venezuela have had the effect at calling attention anew to the report, 

telegraphed from Rio Janeiro several days ago, that a body of British troops was marching through 

Brazilian territory on its way to Venezuela. It is believed, by well-posted diplomats, that this report is 

well founded; that the force in question consists probably of a limited number of British police in 

British Guiana; that it has marched in a southerly direction along the line of the Esequibo River, 

until it reached the neutral territory in dispute between Great Britain and Brazil, and that it is now 

crossing this with the view of entering a part of Venezuela not occupied by the native troops. If it 

shall be shown that this is really the case, the purpose of the British Government is sending this 

force into Venezuela can only be conjectured, but it is not doubted that a definite purpose lies 

behind it. 

It is learned to-day that the proposed road between Port Barima, which lies in the northerly part 

of the British possessions in Venezuela, near the Orinoco River, to the Cuyuni River, a distance of 

about 100 miles, was first suggested half a dozen years ago by the Governor of British Guiana The 

British Government at that time declined to vote the money to construct the road, and the 

proposition now to do what was denied years ago is regarded as another indication that the 

development of the country along the line of the proposed routes is a part of the plan not to 

surrender it 

50


The reference to the “Uruan incident,” in the dispatches from London to-day, requires some 

explanation. Several months ago a British Sergeant of Police, named Behrens, and two assistants, 

crossed the river at Uruan and planted the British flag on the Venezuelan side. The Venezuelan 

police tore down the flag, drove the intruders across the stream, and subsequently arrested them. 

While en route with their prisoners to Cuidad Bolivar, in the State of Bolivar, they were instructed 

from Caracas to proceed no further, but to release the Englishmen, and permit them to return to 

British Guiana. Subsequently Sergeant Behrens was called to London, where his report of the affair 

was made in person to the British Foreign Office. It is to prevent, ostensibly, a repetition of this 

trouble that Joseph Chamberlain has ordered the stationing of at least one Maxim gun at that point. 

[19 October 1895] 

- 49 - 

PERIL ABOUT VENEZUELA 

Great Britain Has Sent An Ultimatum to President Crespo 

A DECISION TAKEN A MONTH AGO 

LONDON, Oct. 19.—The St. James’s Gazette says it is in a position to say that Lord Salisbury has 

sent to President Crespo of Venezuela an ultimatum demanding reparation for the arrest of 

policemen at Uruan and stating the terms upon which Great Britain will definitely determine the 

boundary dispute with Venezuela. The ultimatum is either on the way to Venezuela, or, possibly, by 

this time has been actually delivered. 

Lord Salisbury and Mr. Chamberlain, Colonial Secretary, The Gazette says, decided upon a final 

course in the matter before Mr. Chamberlain started on his vacation, a month ago, and both agreed 

that it was necessary to end the frontier dispute at once, even if it had to he accomplished by force. 

The officials of the Foreign Office practically confirm the statement made by The St. James’s 

Gazette that Lord Salisbury has forwarded an ultimatum to the President of the Venezuelan Republic. 

[20 October 1895] 

- 50 - 

Great Britain and Venezuela 

LONDON, Oct. 20.—The Daily Graphic, in an article to-morrow on the Anglo-Venezuelan 

dispute will say: “President Cespo will not fail to understand that British patience in this ancient 

quarrel has become exhausted. The Venezuelans have lately adopted a perfectly intolerable attitude.” 

[21 October 1895] 

51


- 51 - 

THE UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND IN THE VENEZUELAN CONTROVERSY 

There has been much interesting speculation during the last month, both in the American and 

the English press, about the tenor of the diplomatic communications from our Government to the 

Court of St. James in the present revival of the great and very grave questions of territorial rights at 

issue between Venezuela and Great Britain. While no confirmation has been afforded of the positive 

announcement made by several Washington correspondents that President Cleveland had either 

dispatched or determined on a practical ultimatum to England, menacing an enforcement of the 

Monroe doctrine if she should persevere in her extreme attitude, there are good grounds for 

believing that this correspondence has been conducted by the Administration with marked firmness. 

It is perfectly well known that Mr. Cleveland has strong convictions on the Venezuelan question, 

and his decided resistance to the pretensions of Great Britain in the territory in controversy is one of 

the prominent features of his policy. 

During his first administration, in February, 1888, Secretary of State Bayard, in a note to Mr. 

Phelps, our Ambassador in London, said, in substance, that it would be a matter for grave 

consideration if it should appear that no bounds were to be placed upon the British territorial claims. 

Secretary Gresham, in a dispatch to Minister Bayard July 13, 1894, wrote that he could see only 

two possible ways in which to reach an appropriate solution of the controversy: First, by 

determining through arbitration the rights of the contending parties as historical successors 

respectively to the sovereign rights of Holland and Spain; second, by the establishment of a new 

boundary line in agreement with the requirements of practical deliberations on both sides. 

As an instance of the President’s earnest and recognized sentiments in the Venezuelan matter, it 

is known by some of his friends that there is in the possession of a gentleman in this city a letter of 

great significance, written by the Chargé d’Affaires of Venezuela in the United States in 1888, highly 

lauding him as the powerful and never-yielding friend of Venezuela in her difficulty with Great 

Britain. 

At the time of the “Sackville-West incident” of the Presidential campaign of 1888 this letter was 

placed at the disposal of the Democratic National Committee, and Mr. Brice anxiously desired to 

publish it as a counteractive of the ferocious Anglophobist accusations against the tariff-reform 

hero. But Mr. Cleveland, when his consent was sought, took a lofty and conscientious attitude, and 

refused to be a party to such electioneering claptrap, even if his success at the polls depended on it. 

The publication of the letter, with the connecting circumstances, would present one of the most 

characteristic chapters in Mr. Cleveland’s personal and political history. 

Seriousness of the Dispute 

In view of the President’s record on this important issue, it seems, therefore, fairly certain that 

when the latest correspondence is laid before Congress, it will be found to emphasize the strong 

disapproval hitherto expressed by the United States Government of England’s constant westward 

extension of her Guiana frontiers and stubborn refusal to submit her case with Venezuela to 

arbitration. Whatever the terms employed in renewing this disapproval—whether practically 

aggressive or discreetly guarded—their large moral significance for the future is unquestionable. The 

52


mere fact of the persistence of the United States as an interested and alert party to the Venezuelan 

controversy must give that controversy weighty aspects until it is settled. 

The United States has deliberately thrown herself in the way of England’s arbitrary enlargement 

of her dominions in South America; and when it is considered that this is a substantial interference 

with one of the most cherished and craftiest schemes of British diplomacy, it is manifest that an 

issue of much delicacy is shaping. 

Moreover, study of the conditions makes it easily conceivable that our issue with England 

respecting Venezuela may far transcend in seriousness and exceed in unpleasantness the Alabama 

and seals disputes. Those disputes, the most embarrassing that the State Department has had to deal 

with since the war, concerned exclusively the direct and immediate National rights of the United 

States. 

On the other hand, we own no territory at or near the seat of this quarrel, or, for tint matter, 

anywhere on the South American Continent; we have no immediate Nationa1 rights of any 

description to safeguard in that quarter; and it is even doubtful whether American citizens have any 

vested interests there to demand our attention, for, as will be shown in this article, the so-called 

“Manoa Concession” of which so much has been said by writers who barely understand the 

elements of the situation, rests at best on an exceedingly uncertain footing, and, considering the 

peculiar history and status of the Manoa Company, certainly cannot afford the slightest incidental 

basis for a serious policy of State. 

Consequently, the position of the United States is essentially that or gratuitous and sharp 

intervention between two remote powers that are at odds. She declares, in purport, that she cannot 

admit the right of the stronger of these powers to determine the matter b arbitrary assumptions. 

England has never been accustomed to complacently receive such pointed suggestions from a nation 

which, without having sovereign claims at stake, steps forward to formally thwart her territorial 

designs. 

The Joint Resolution of Congress 

It is not alone the executive department of our Government that is committed to antagonism of 

Great Britain’s uncompromising attitude toward Venezuela. Congress has several times given special 

consideration to the Venezuelan question, which indeed, is becoming one of the standing themes for 

set speeches and significant action in that body. At the last session the following joint resolution was 

passed unanimously: 

Whereas, In the present enlightened age of the world, when international disputes in general, and more 

particularly those pertaining to boundary, are in constant process of adjustment by joint commission or by outside 

arbitration; and 

Whereas, Since the existing boundary dispute in Guiana between Great Britain and Venezuela ought not to 

constitute an exception to the general rule, but should more naturally come within the scope and range of modern 

international precedent and practice, in that it turns exclusively upon simple and readily ascertainable historical facts; 

and 

Whereas, Since it would be extremely gratifying to all peace-loving peoples, and particularly to the impartial 

friends of both parties, to see this long-standing and disquieting boundary dispute in Guiana adjusted in a manner 

just and honorable alike to both, to the end that possible international complications be avoided and American 

public law and traditions maintained; therefore, 

Be It resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives, &c., that the President’s suggestion, made in his last 

annual message to this body—namely, that Great Britain and Venezuela refer their dispute as to boundary limits in 

53


Guiana to friendly arbitration—be most earnestly recommended to the favorable consideration at both parties in 

interest. 

While this, on its face, is a strictly courteous expression of mere sentiment, it goes to the 

foundations of the practical issue, and in terms, perhaps, as distasteful to England as if it were an ex 

parte statement of the case. Arbitration is what England refuses most obstinately as the one 

expedient inconsistent with her established policy in this matter; and, on the contrary, it is what 

Venezuela puts to the front as her sole programme. England has again and again repeated her 

determination to settle the dispute by exclusive dealings with Venezuela, and Venezuela, deliberately 

pronouncing England a “usurper” in the whole domain in question, has as steadfastly declined to 

treat with her on every successive basis of compromise proposed by the British Cabinet, 

Extremely weighty considerations of empire and trade are wrapped up in England’s resolve not 

to hazard by the chance of arbitration the valuable territory which she can, of course, hold 

indefinitely against a feeble State like Venezuela. While neither claiming nor admitting any rigid 

boundary line between Venezuela and her colony of British Guiana, there is one fixed point at which 

she purposes to originate such a line, and from which she will not deviate. This point is on the coast, 

right at the centre of the littoral of the Boca Grande, or grand mouth of the Orinoco River, where 

the small river Amacuro flows into the sea. Any boundary line projected southward from that point 

would include within British possessions the Barima arm (Brazo Barima) of the Orinoco, and the 

whole island of Barima. Thus, the essential feature of England’s territorial contention is her claim to 

full equality with Venezuela in ownership and authority at the main mouth of the Orinoco. 

Importance of England’s Claim 

The importance of this position for England is enormous, and even incalculable. It would give 

her the finest strategic situation on the continent of South America, with absolute control of the 

Orinoco and its numerous branches, connecting with the Amazon through the navigable stream of 

Cassiquiari—a network or rivers draining about half the continent. 

The centre of the Boca Grande coast line as the starting point of England’s boundary is identical 

with the terminating point of the famous “Linea Caprichosa” of Sir Robert Schomburgk. In 1841 

Schomburgk, an engineer in the British service, entered the disputed territory entirely without the 

concurrence of the Venezuelan Government, and proceeded to run a line from the Brazilian frontier 

to the Boca Grande, which was intended to establish a definite boundary between British Guiana 

and Venezuela, The Schomburgk line, arbitrarily traced as it was, without any warrant of mutual 

consent, was not at first claimed by the British Foreign Office as official, and, indeed, has not until 

very recently been designated in British diplomatic correspondence as England’s primary base. But 

in 1890, Mr. Lincoln, the United States Minister in London, obtained from Lord Salisbury a formal 

declaration describing all the country to the east of the Schomburgk line as unequivocally British. 

Mr. Lincoln had proposed a conference of representatives of England, Venezuela, and the United 

States to settle the question, and Lord Salisbury replied that, while he was ready to agree to an 

arbitration commission, he must insist that the only subject to be decided by such a commission 

should be the ownership of the territory west of the Schomburgk line. This was a practical 

suggestion that England regarded herself as entitled to portions of the country not allotted to her by 

Schomburgk, and, in fact, her acts in the last few years have been quite in keeping with her new 

dictum, for it is well known that she has steadily advanced westward, occupying the country and 

54


establishing posts, until to-day there exists a British police station at Cuyuni Mine, at the confluence 

of the Yuruari and Cuyuni Rivers, not far from the gold mines of El Callao, the new El Dorado. 

The scale on which her continued encroachments are prosecuted is impressively shown by a 

glance at the map. Cuyuni Mine, for instance, is quite as far to the westward from the Schomburgk 

line as the Schomburgk line is from the Esequibo River—the original and only legitimate boundary 

(according to Venezuela) of British Guiana. 

In bringing her pretensions to their existing complexion England has, however, involved herself 

in numerous inconsistencies, some of which are startling in their contrasts. 

Origin of British Title 

She acquired her title to the colony of British Guiana by treaty from Holland in 1814, the 

provinces transferred being those of Esequibo, Demerara, and Berbice. Venezuela, as the successor 

to Spain, has always insisted, without the slightest wavering, that the extreme western limit of the 

territory thus ceded by Holland was the Esequibo River; and, notwithstanding her willingness at all 

times to arbitrate, she has never recognized that England enjoys legal right to a single foot of ground 

west of the Esequibo. 

The earliest assertions of Great Britain to dominion beyond the Esequibo were vague and 

hesitating. They were based on representations that the Dutch settlements had spread into that 

region, and that treaties had been executed with the Indians entitling the English to lands of 

comprehensive extent. To these arguments it was replied that the original title was vested in Spain by 

virtue of discovery and sovereignty; that it had never been alienated or relinquished in any manner, 

and that it passed directly to Venezuela. 

Thus the case stood until Sir Robert Schomburgk drew his “arbitrary line” of demarkation in 

1841. He set up posts to indicate British dominion at Point Barima, Amacuro, and other localities. 

Thereupon the Venezuelan Government made a vigorous protest, and Lord Aberdeen promptly 

ordered the posts removed. Aberdeen was so far from urging extraordinary claims that in 1844 be 

spontaneously proposed to Dr. Fortique, Venezuelan Plenipotentiary in London, a boundary line as 

follows: 

Beginning on the coast at the mouth of the River Moroco, it runs straight to the point where the River Barima 

joins the Guaima; from there up the Barima as far as the Aunama, which it follows upward to the place where this 

creek reaches its shortest distance from the Acarabisi; then it descends the said Acarabisi as far as its confluence 

with the Cuyuni, following afterward the last river up stream until it reaches the high lands in the immediate 

neighborhood of Mount Roraima, which divides the waters flowing to the Esequibo from those running into the 

Rio Branco. 

This Aberdeen proposition of 1844 was the first specific definition of England’s pretended 

rights, and the sole foundation for it in international law was the shadowy allegation that Dutch 

settlements and Indian treaties justified Great Britain in instituting authority over a portion of the 

trans-Esequibo regions, the exact geographical limits of which had never been adjusted. Lord 

Aberdeen, as soon as his attention was called to the daring usurpations contemplated by the 

Schomburgk line, shrank from accepting responsibility for them, and, instead of presuming to 

dominion on the coast of the grand mouth of the Orinoco, he was content to start his line from the 

mouth of the Moroco, which is very far removed even from the Barima approach to the Orinoco. It 

is true he sought some recompense for this forbearance by a sweeping projection of the boundary 

55


beyond the Schomburgk line in the interior, but this sinks into insignificance when his absolute 

resignation to Venezuela of the entire Orinoco coast country is considered. And let it be especially 

observed, in this connection, that whatever territory west of the Esequibo England may conceivably 

have fallen heir to in consequence of Dutch settlement must have had its widest extension along the 

coast, since no occupation of the interior was attempted in those early times, and, for that matter, 

the interior in the parts in question still remains almost unexplored. 

England’s shifting policy 

In brief, it appears that Lord Aberdeen, in undertaking to trace British Guiana’s extreme rightful 

bounds—thereby fixing a precedent for future British Foreign Secretaries—could find no excuse on 

the score of Dutch settlement for carrying them further than the mouth of the Moroco. Yet to-day 

England not only claims the coast up to the terminus of the Schomburgk line at the mouth of the 

Amacuro, but has encroached in the interior considerably beyond the furthest westward bend of the 

Aberdeen line. 

While the Aberdeen boundary project was under advisement Dr. Fortique, the Venezuelan 

Plenipotentiary, died. Nothing further was done until the celebrated status quo of 1850 was 

established, whereby Great Britain agreed no to occupy or encroach upon the territory in dispute or 

to sanction such occupation or encroachment by her authorities, in consideration of a similar 

agreement on the part of Venezuela. What was implied by the term “territory in dispute” was not 

stated in the agreement. The status quo of 1850 has never been abrogated. Whatever interpretation 

may be made of its wording, there cannot be the least doubt that England has repeatedly violated it 

by overt acts, including the invasion of the country far beyond both the Schomburgk and Aberdeen 

lines. 

The British maintain that violations have likewise been perpetrated by Venezuela, notably in the 

case of the Manoa Concession, embracing a part of the territory east of the Schomburgk line; but 

Venezuela insists that the particular territory was never properly in dispute. She avers that it has 

always been her understanding that the status quo of 1850, far from applying to the vitally 

important territory between the Moroco and the Amacuro, concerned only the insignificant strip 

between the Pumeron (lying to the east of the Moroco) and the Esequibo. 

From 1850 to 1886 England’s diplomatic course was very shifty. 

In 1881 Lord Granville, after rejecting proposals for compromise from Señor Roias, Venezuela’s 

agent in England, presented an altogether new boundary scheme, as follows: 

“The starting point shall be fixed in a place on the seacoast, distant nine miles due east from the right bank of 

the River Barima, and the line shall run toward the south, passing over the mountain or hill called Tarabita. on the 

original map of Schomburgk, situated in 8 degrees north latitude; thence to the west on the same parallel of latitude 

till it intersects the boundary line proposed by Schomburgk, laid down on the said map; further on it shall follow the 

course of the Acarabisi to its confluence with the Cuyuni, and then the left bank of the River Cuyuni up to its 

headwaters, whence it shall turn to the south-east, to meet the line proposed by Schomburgk to the Esequibo and 

Corantin.” 

The line here suggested by Lord Granville, while varying but slightly from the Aberdeen line in 

its interior prolongation, departed radically from it on the seacoast. This second official 

pronunciamento on behalf of the British Government carried the frontier limits on the Atlantic 

from the mouth of the Moroco River almost to the mouth of the Barima arm or the Orinoco. But 

56


conciliatory explanations accompanied Lord Granville’s correspondence on this point which cannot 

readily be reconciled with present claims. Lord Granville urged that the new boundary would satisfy 

the reasonable pretensions and exigencies of Venezuela, and prevent all occasion for further dispute, 

since it left to the republic what might be styled the Dardanelles of the Orinoco—the complete 

dominion over its mouth—while it insured to British Guiana a natural frontier well defined in 

almost its whole length, with the exception of the first fifty miles from the sea into the interior, 

where it would be necessary to trace an arbitrary line in order to give Venezuela the undisturbed 

possession of the mouth of the Orinoco. 

This was equivalent to a formal disavowal by England of any design upon the Boca Grande of 

the Orinoco—in the most positive style the exclusive control at the great river was assigned to 

Venezuela. 

Failure to Arbitrate 

In 1883 (Lord Granville being still at the head of the Foreign Office) her Britannic Majesty made 

overtures to the Government of Venezuela in behalf of simultaneous and amicable arrangement of 

these three questions—territorial limits, differential duties or treaty of commerce, and pecuniary 

reclamations. Gem Guzman Blanco was thereupon dispatched to London by the republic as Envoy 

Extraordinary, with full powers to deal definitively with all these issues. For the first time Venezuela 

was now represented at the Court of St. James by a diplomat of the highest order of ability. Guzman 

Blanco, instead of dallying with vexing and impracticable plans of boundary compromise, 

concentrated all his efforts to give the controversy a new direction—in favor of arbitration. In this 

endeavor he arrived at the very verge of brilliant success. June 18, 1885, Earl Granville assented to 

the draft of a treaty between England and Venezuela which embraced an article providing that any 

difference not adjustable by the usual means of friendly negotiation should be submitted “to the 

arbitration of a third power, or of several powers, in amity with both countries, without resorting to 

war,” and that the result of such arbitration should be binding upon both Governments. 

This great diplomatic stroke of Guzman Blanco, absolutely bringing England to bay on the 

boundary question, was, however, immediately made of no avail by the overturn of the Gladstone 

Ministry. Lord Salisbury, who took office a few days later, promptly rescinded the arbitration clause 

of the purposed treaty. Since that time England has persistently declined every proposal to arbitrate 

the matter, and, not satisfied with repudiating the comparatively moderate boundary designations 

originated by Aberdeen and Granville, has enlarged her territorial claims with the utmost 

recklessness and has systematically prosecuted forcible aggrandizements. 

In April, 1885, not long before Lord Granville’s agreement to the principle of arbitration, the 

authorities of British Guiana had flagrantly violated the pacific understanding of 1850. Michael 

McTurk, a Magistrate from that colony, “by order of his Excellency the Governor of British 

Guiana” proceeded to the Amacuro River, the extreme coast limit of the Schomburgk line, and 

posted notices declaring that any person infringing the right of her Majesty or acting in 

contravention of the laws of British Guiana would be prosecuted according to law. It is much to the 

point to bear in mind that the Amacuro region, where this transpired, had never been, even 

suggestively claimed as British territory in diplomatic correspondence, and that the most recent 

correspondence concerning the limits of England’s possessions on the coast (Earl Granville’s, in 

1881) had explicitly proposed that all the littoral bordering on the mouth of the Orinoco should 

belong to Venezuela alone. 

57


Moreover, even after the expunging of the arbitration clause of the treaty negotiated by Guzman 

Blanco, the English Foreign Secretary hesitated to assert jurisdiction so far as the coast limit of the 

Schomburgk line. July 30. 1886, Lord Rosebery, as Foreign Secretary of the Gladstone Cabinet, 

which followed the short-lived Tory Government, recommended that the boundary should be fixed 

somewhere between the lines designated, respectively, by Señor Rojas and Lord Granville in 1881, 

merely specifying that her Majesty attached “especial importance to the possession of the River 

Guaima by British Guiana.” In other words, as late as 1886 the British were content to let the line 

exclude completely from their territory every part of the Orinoco mouth. 

After 1886 England cast aside all pretense of recognition of Venezuela’s sovereignty over the 

Boca Grande. Lord Salisbury, replying in 1890 to United States Minister Lincoln, indicated by 

implication that his Government was unalterably resolved to share equally with Venezuela the 

control of that important region. Meantime the absorption of the interior has progressed without 

restraint, the manifest aim being to assert undisputed mastery over the extraordinarily rich gold 

districts of Yuruari. 

These districts lie very far away from the Schomburgk line, and considerably outside the 

Aberdeen line; wherefore England broadens out her claims to neutralize such inconvenient 

circumstances. 

Instances of English Assurance 

Two amazing instances of England’s assurance will illustrate her uniform course in the interior: 

1. Ciudad Bolivar is a Venezuelan town on the main Orinoco, some 200 miles inward from the 

Boca Grande. It is the principal port for that entire region, including the Yuruari gold mines. 

Recently a company was organized to build a railroad from Bolivar to Guacipati, in order to facilitate 

the transportation of the product of the mines. The Governor of British Guiana, learning of this, 

put forth an intimation that the projected railway would penetrate to British territory, and that those 

interested should take notice accordingly. 

2. The latest Venezuelan Yellow Book contains some remarkably pithy correspondence between 

Mr. Bodman, German Minister at Caracas, and Acting Charge d’Affaires for Great Britain, and P. 

Ezequiel Rojas. Venezuelan Secretary of State. Mr. Bodman, in behalf of the British Government, 

July 12, 1894, addressed a note marked “urgent” to Señor Rojas protesting against Venezuelan 

intrusion on the right bank of the Cuyuni River. To this the Secretary replied that the complaint 

could not be entertained since any recognition of it validity would imply tacit acknowledgment of 

British right to Venezuelan territory and overthrow the status quo of 1850. 

While Venezuela has abandoned, since 1886, regular diplomatic relations with England, she has 

made repeated attempts again to persuade the British Government to arbitration. In these later 

endeavors it cannot be doubted that she has sorely missed the powerful influence, distinguished 

ability, and sagacious judgment which Gen. Guzman Blanco brought to the discharge of his mission 

ten years ago. 

Estimated by their results, Gen. Blanco’s services were of transcendent value to his country, for 

England, having once been induced to concede the admissibility of arbitrating this question, will 

necessarily stand at a disadvantage in the sight of an impartial world until she returns to that 

voluntary, amicable disposition. Regarded quite apart from its practical achievement, the Blanco 

correspondence deserves an eminent place in diplomatic literature, both for its solid and its brilliant 

merits. 

58


Considering the increasing gravity of the situation, it is not strange that rumors arc frequently 

heard of a movement for Gen. Blanco’s return to Venezuela. During the last several years he has 

been living in retirement in Paris. His energies, however, have not been in any wise impaired, which 

is amply demonstrated by the great increase of his wealth through bold financial enterprises. 

The Situation Summed Up 

In summing up the whole territorial controversy, the present exact claims of each party as to the 

extreme limits of possible British ownership west of the Esequibo will be clearly and carefully set 

forth: 

1. Venezuela, while insisting that England’s inheritance from Holland embraced no country 

whatever west of the Esequibo, is willing to admit a possible British title as far as the River 

Pumeron, but no further. (The Pumeron is the first stream emptying into the Atlantic to the west of 

the Esequibo.) Absolutely the only territory which Venezuela regards as in dispute is that bounded 

on the east by the Esequibo, on the north by the ocean, on the west by the Pumeron, and on the 

south by the Cuyuni River. In recognizing that the ownership of this small strip may be in doubt, 

she considers that she goes to the utmost extreme of courteous concession to England on the 

ground of alleged Dutch settlement beyond the Esequibo antedating 1810. As to the declaration of 

the British that treaties with Indian tribes give them dominion far westward in the interior, 

Venezuela utterly denies that such treaties could by any construction of law or precedent have 

rightfully alienated ownership from her as the immediate successor to the dominion of Spain over 

the entire country. Venezuela naturally does not attach the least weight to the circumstance that the 

English have long enjoyed de facto possession of the interior by actual occupation; she holds that 

this occupation is mere invasion and usurpation, as transparently and unquestionably so as forcible 

occupation by the United States of any of the unsettled portions of British Columbia would be. An 

interesting point made concerning this issue of de facto sovereignty is that notwithstanding British 

occupation, the inhabitants view Venezuela as their ruler, because the priests and missionaries who 

visit the villages periodically to perform marriage ceremonies and other clerical functions in all cases 

belong to the Venezuelan diocese. 

The various propositions of Venezuela to the British Crown for settling the question have been 

in the interest of conciliation. Their distinguishing feature has been the urging of arbitration, instead 

of summary boundary-line compromises. It is true that in 1881 Señor Rojas, Venezuela’s diplomatic 

representative in London, suggested a compromise line, which would have given England a far 

larger territory than the Esequibo-Pumeron-Cuyuni strip, which Venezuela contends is the only tract 

fairly in dispute. But the Rojas offer was occasioned by emergent conditions or long standing. 

Venezuela was sick of British encroachments upon her vital possessions, and in order to check them 

was glad to yield something. All Venezuelan official maps indicate the Esequibo as the boundary 

line, and Venezuelan diplomatic maps uniformly place the limit of disputed territory at the Pumeron. 

As an illustration of Venezuela’s continued insistence that the territory indisputably belonging to her 

extends at least as far as Pumeron, the latest map of the Manoa Company’s concession, based on 

alleged reaffirmation of the Venezuelan grant, June 18, 1895, shows the Pomeron to be the eastern 

confine of the grant. The Manoa Company, whose concessions of rights still require the 

indorsement of the Venezuelan Congress to give them substantial effect, would certainly not 

compromise the disposition of Venezuela in the international boundary question by issuing an 

exaggerated map of the grant. Another illustrative case in point is the fact that in May, 1894, the 

59


Government of Venezuela made an energetic protest concerning the inaccuracies of certain 

Venezuelan maps printed by United States publishers—embraced in Rand, McNally & Co.’s 

“Enlarged Business Atlas and Shippers’ Guide for 1894,” and Appleton & Co.’s “Library Atlas of 

Modern Geography for 1894.” These maps were compiled from British sources, and were based 

essentially on the Schomburgk line as the western boundary of British Guiana. The Venezuelan 

Government did not confine its action to a protest, but excluded them from the country. 

Dividing Lines Are Conjectured 

2. Any line pretending to define British territorial claims as they are to-day must be somewhat 

conjectural. The starting point is fixed at the mouth of the Amacuro River, where the Schomburgk 

line reaches the grand mouth of the Orinoco. But there are no data from which to determine 

absolutely the course of the proposed British boundary through the interior. Taking, however, what 

is known of British occupation and pretension in the gold regions—including the existence of a 

police station at Cuyuni Mine, the protest of the Governor of British Guiana against a railroad from 

Ciudad Bolivar to Guicipati, and the recent assertion of dominion as far as the source of the 

Usapamo Rivet—it is easy to draw an approximately correct line. All the points named lie in the 

high country limited on the north by the Imataca Mountain range, which originates not far from the 

Caroni River an runs almost due east, just below the eighth degree of north latitude. Hence the 

present British line, beginning at the end of the Schomburgk line, bears south-west until it strikes the 

mountains, proceeds along their base throughout their westward extent, and then, describing an arc, 

proceeds to reunite with the Schomburgk line at the southern boundary of Venezuela. It is probably 

no exaggeration to say that this cuts off from Venezuela about one-sixth of the territory which she 

regards as indefeasibly her own. 

Although Venezuela, like South American countries in general, has been at not infrequent 

intervals disturbed by revolutions and other violent dissensions, she presents, on the whole, a 

favorable and pleasing aspect as a nation. Her finances, as the result of policies instituted by 

Guzman Blanco when President, are on a basis of conservatism and security. Her debt is but 

$22,000,000, and 10 percent annually of the revenues would provide for its amortization. She takes 

an extreme position in her monetary system, having no paper currency of any kind in circulation. A 

Venezuelan one-hundred-bolivar gold piece will bring as much as 100f. of France at any money 

changer’s, and the Venezuelan sliver dollar ranks with the best silver of the world. 

Aside from political reasons for regarding the British aggressions with disfavor, the United States 

has exceptional occasions for friendship toward Venezuela. It was that country which gave to the 

world the Washington of South America—Simon Bolivar—and in Caracas the movement for South 

American freedom originated. Our shipping trade with Venezuela has exceedingly satisfactory 

conditions, superior, so far as the Atlantic seaboard is concerned, to those existing with any other of 

our sister republics. 

The most important American line of steamers plying from New-York to South American ports 

is the Venezuelan, or Red D Line. Venezuela is singular among South American countries, in that 

she buys more merchandise from the United States than from England. In 1888-9 her imports from 

New-York aggregated 19,861,432 bolivars, against 16,230,840 from Liverpool. The value of exports 

from New-York to Venezuela during the year ended June 30, 1895, was $4,897,084. The Red D Line 

brings annually to New-York about $10,000,000 worth of Venezuelan coffee. This is a conservative 

estimate. 

60


American Interests 

Capt. E. H. Plumacher, our veteran Consul at Maracaibo, who has served there continuously for 

seventeen years, returned last week to his post of duty after a vacation of several months in the 

United States. There is probably no more trustworthy authority on Venezuelan concerns than Capt. 

Plumacher. To the writer of this article he spoke with enthusiasm about the spirit and prospects of 

the country, and particularly the disposition of Venezuelans to expand their commerce with us in all 

its branches. American machinery and American goods of every description, he said, are constantly 

growing in favor there, and American capitalists are largely and increasingly interested in Venezuelan 

railway construction, mining and other enterprises, which they find to be safe and fruitful 

investments. Hitherto Germany and England have had this field to themselves. 

The decided practical interest which some or our wide-awake countrymen display in the 

generous inclinations of Venezuela for the United States has been conspicuously illustrated by the 

obtainment from her Congress of grants to enormous tracts of territory. It is not the interest of this 

article to enter in detail into the bewildering history of the “Manoa Company Limited”—the 

original concession, deed of transfer, revocation, and subsequent alleged renewal of charter, 

capitalization, financiering, law suits, judgments, proposed restructuring into the “Orinoco 

Company,” &c. A brief explanation or the bearing (or rather non-bearing) of the Manoa and all like 

grants upon the international Venezuelan question is all that is required here. 

An impression prevails that the Manoa Company (or Orinoco Company, as it has been 

rechristened) is a time-honored corporation of American citizens, actively developing certain 

resources in the Orinoco Delta country, under a perfectly substantial Venezuelan grant, which grant 

includes a part or the domain claimed by England; and that the company, because of the American 

citizenship or the persons comprising it, is entitled to the formal protection of our Government 

against British interference with its property rights. 

This impression is all wrong in its main features. The old Manoa Company, a Brooklyn 

corporation, acquiring its title by deed of transfer June 14, 1884, from Cyrenius C. Fitzgerald, the 

original grantee, (whose concession was dated at Caracas Sept. 22, 1883.) enjoyed but a brief career 

of recognized standing. Though capitalized on paper at $5,000,000, it failed to fulfill the conditions 

or the grant, which called for active industrial operations, colonization, and the like within a 

specified time. Notwithstanding the pretensions to $5,000,000 of capital, it has been stated to the 

writer, on the authority of an officer of the company, that not more than $25,000 was laid out 

altogether for the purposes prescribed in the grant. The company did, however, make some showing 

of expenditure in these directions, building a sawmill near Morajuana, and there its representatives 

were found by McTurk, the British Guiana magistrate when he made his progress through the 

country in April, 1885, to warn intruders off. But the Venezuelan Government was not satisfied with 

the Manoa Company’s performance of its contract, and, accordingly, Sept. 3, 1886, the whole grant 

was voided. 

After that the Manoa Company had no status whatever until June 18, 1895, when the Federal 

Council of Venezuela gave its consent to a renewal of the concession. But this does not restore the 

territory to the company, for, while the Federal Council may revoke a grant, it cannot revive one 

without the approval of Congress. Congress, at latest reports, had not acted on the question of 

revival, and therefore, while the Manoa Company is reconstructing itself under the laws of the State 

of Washington, and attempting to recapitalize itself, it still remains uncertain whether the partially 

resuscitated grant will ever amount to anything tangible. 

61


The Turnbull Investments 

The Manoa Company, moreover, has a competitor in George Turnbull, an American citizen 

residing in Boston, who, after the revocation of the original Manoa concession, obtained from the 

Congress of Venezuela (April 28, 1887) a grant to a large part of the same territory. Mr. Turnbull’s 

representatives in this city maintain that he kept in good faith, his contract with the Government, 

except when prevented from doing so by revolution, and that he spent some $165,000 developing 

his interests. But on June 18, 1895, (the same day when the Manoa Company received its seeming 

new lease of life,) the Federal Council rescinded Turnbull’s whole concession, including the specular 

hematite iron mines of Imataca Island. These mines and the regions immediately adjacent, Mr. 

Turnbull’s representatives say, belong to him by actual purchase and by a deed separate and apart 

from any concessionary rights, and cannot legally be thus taken away from him and regranted. On 

the other hand, it is expressly provided, in the new “Mining Code of Venezuela,” (adopted April 18, 

1893,) that “mines may not be worked, even by the owners of land, without a concession from the 

Federal Government.” 

The whole subject of concessions to American citizens within the limits of the territory in 

dispute between Venezuela and England is thus involved in controversy. Whatever the merits of the 

discussion may prove to be ultimately, there is at present no established condition of American 

ownership of grants made by Venezuela to lands claimed by England, and even if there shall in 

future come to pass an unquestionable revival of either of the two old grants in that region, the 

United States Government would certainly have no disposition to seek a quarrel with England on 

the score or the latter’s failure to admit Venezuela’s exclusive territorial jurisdiction. The question of 

the Manoa and Turnbull concessions has never come up as a feature of our Government’s 

correspondence with England on the Venezuelan topic. The United States, in a dignified way, insists 

on arbitration as the only decent and suitable course. This is her sole and simple issue with England, 

and she will not foolishly let it be complicated. 

W. W. SPOONER 

62


[21 October 1895] 

63


- 52 - 

BAYARD ON THE SITUATION 

He Has Heard Nothing of Britain’s Project from Salisbury 

LONDON, Oct. 21.—The Chronicle will to-morrow publish an interview with Ambassador 

Bayard, in which the American representative says that he knows nothing of Great Britain’s action in 

the Venezuelan matter beyond what he has read in the newspapers. 

His latest mission was to effect, if possible, in a friendly spirit and with all good intention on the 

part of the United States, the resumption of those negotiations on the frontier questions that were 

so abruptly stayed last year. He had brought this matter before Lord Salisbury, who listened to his 

arguments with the best spirit. 

The United States, Mr. Bayard declares, is only desirous of bringing about a peaceful reopening 

of the boundary question between Venezuela and Guiana. With regard to the delay of Lord Salisbury 

in answering his last attempt at reconciliation, Mr. Bayard says that the Prime Minister had been 

abroad spending a holiday. Since his return, he has doubtless been very busy at the Foreign Office. 

Mr. Bayard is, however, momentarily expecting an answer. The many disputes that had arisen 

between the United States and Venezuela, Mr. Bayard says, have always been amicably arranged by 

boards of conciliation, and he does not see why the same plan should not be adopted by Great 

Britain and Venezuela. 

[22 October 1895] 

- 53 - 

GREAT BRITAIN STUBBORN 

Venezuela Must Yield Boundaries of Cuyuni and Auracura 

OPINIONS OF VARIOUS NEWSPAPERS 

Sensational Rumors of Preparation at the Washington Navy Yard 

Gunshops Are Disproved by the Facts 

LONDON, Oct. 21.—The Globe publishes a note saying that, as the British ultimatum to 

Venezuela has not yet reached its destination, it is not considered desirable to publish any of its 

details. It is proper to state, however, that the document is worded in terms of firmness and force. 

The communication, The Globe also says, was not transmitted through any representative of 

Venezuela in England, diplomatic relations between the two countries having been broken off some 

years ago and no longer existing. The note further says that the ultimatum informs the Government 

of Venezuela that the Government of Great Britain will not permit any overstepping by Venezuela 

of the boundaries marked by the course of the Cuyuni and Auracura Rivers. 

Great Britain, however, expresses willingness to submit to arbitration the question of other 

territories in dispute beyond that limit. The announcement of the ultimatum contained in the note 

published in The Globe is officially authorized. 

The Pall Mall Gazette asserts that the ultimatum will be presented through Señor Rodriguez, 

Venezuelan Consul in London. 

64


The Pall Mall Gazette says that, should it be decided by the Government to take naval action 

against Venezuela, the movement would be confided to Vice Admiral James Elphinstone Erskine, in 

command of the North American and West Indian squadron. The disposition of his fleet at the time 

of his last communication with the Admiralty, Navy Department, in Whitehall, was as follows: 

Crescent at Halifax, Canada at Barbadoes, Magicienne, Tartar, and Rambler at the Bermudas; 

Mohawk and Tourmaline at Jamaica; Partridge at the Bahamas, and Cleopatra, Pelican, and Buzzard 

in Newfoundland waters. 

The St. James’s Gazette, in an article on the situation of the dispute between Great Britain and 

Venezuela says: 

“The United States Government has serious grievances of its own against Venezuela, and it 

would best become its position as a great civilized power to join in bringing these Spanish-Indian 

barbarians to order. A good lesson given to Venezuela would be equally profitable to both the 

United States and England. The co-operation of the United States would also be humane, since it 

would have a tendency to make the lesson bloodless, convincing the Venezuelans of the folly of 

resistance.” 

The Westminster Gazette says: “Venezuela, like Nicaragua, after much fuss, will probably prove to 

be small beer. No doubt the less scrupulous of the New-York papers will talk big about what they 

are going to do with the lion’s tall, but Great Britain and the United States are not going to be set by 

the ears by a pack of Venezuelans.” 

The Globe says: “Even if the Monroe doctrine was an axiom of international law, it could have no 

bearing upon our dispute with Venezuela. Its widest application can only be held to insist that no 

European power shall effect a fresh lodgment in America, so it does not affect the decision of 

England not to allow Venezuela to occupy part of the colony of British Guiana.” 

[22 October 1895] 

- 54 - 

BRITAIN AND VENEZUELA 

Dispatch to Crespo Transmitted by Berlin Foreign Office 

IT DOES NOT MENTION BOUNDARIES 

Diplomats in Washington Are Skeptical About London’s Information— 

The Dispatch Not an Ultimatum 

LONDON, Oct. 22.—The St. James’s Gazette says the statement is absolutely untrue that the 

peremptory dispatch or ultimatum to Venezuela was delivered to Señor Rodriguez, Venezuelan 

Consul here. As the German Government has consented to temporarily take charge of the interests 

of British subjects in Venezuela. The Gazette says the dispatch to President Crespo will naturally be 

dispatched through the Foreign Office in Berlin. 

The ultimatum, it is asserted, makes no reference to the boundary question, which England 

declines to regard as unsettled, but simply deals with the matter of the arrest of the British 

Inspectors, Barnes and Baker, in regard to which Lord Salisbury informed the Venezuelan 

Government that if proper reparation should not he given within a specified time, Great Britain 

would hold herself at liberty to seek it by other means. 

65


The measures taken will probably resemble those pursued in the Nicaraguan affair, and the 

British Admiral in those Waters will doubtless receive instructions to seize the Venezuelan ports and 

collect the customs duties, 

The St. James’s Gazette, in a leading editorial on the Venezuelan situation, says that the case is not 

one for arbitration, and adds: The good offices of the United States would be tendered with greater 

authority and better grace if that Government paid the indemnity it is required to pay by the Bering 

Sea award. We were absurdly overtaxed by the Alabama decision.” 

[23 October 1895] 

- 55 - 

VENEZUELA AGAINST INVASION 

If United States Is Inactive, Great Britain Will Not Retain More Land in Guiana than Ships’ 

Guns Cover 

Special Cable Dispatch to The New-York Times 

LIMA, Peru, via Galveston, Oct. 23.—A leading article in the Comercio says that if the United 

States is to retain its prestige it must make its influence impressive in the question at issue between 

Great Britain and Venezuela. 

If the United States remains inactive and suffers a blockade of Venezuela, England may not yet 

be triumphant. The result would possibly be nothing more than that England would retain of the 

Guiana coast only so much as the guns of her ships could cover. 

[24 October 1895] 


- 56 - 

VENEZUELA AND THE NEWSPAPERS 

Criticism of The Evening Post’s Discussions 

I was disgusted in taking up The Evening Post of to-day and reading its telegraph dispatches from 

inconsequential journals (all British) praising its un-American and superficial course—superficial, for 

The Post’s discussion of the Venezuelan question has never touched the merits of the subject. 

It has been purely technical, political, and along English diplomatic lines. If The Post would treat 

the subject on its merits, if it would answer the elaborate articles in Harper’s Weekly and The New-York 

Times, and if it would devote some attention to the all but exhaustive pamphlet of ex-Minister W. L. 

Scruggs, (published in Philadelphia, where it can be had for 25 cents,) it could claim some hearing 

66


for its advocacy of the position of the Marquis of Salisbury, for whom The Post’s editor seems to 

hold a brief. 

I imagine I am not alone among those knowing of The Post’s course as to Venezuela, who 

decidedly object to its daily offering of vacant chaff for grain. 

In conclusion, let me thank The Times for the solid information and able treatment which to-day’s 

Times supplies. I am constrained to ask you to publish this, my indignant protest against The Post’s 

superficial and unfair treatment of the Venezuelan question. It is the only remedy at the command 

of a READER. 

New-York, Oct. 21, 1895. 

[24 October 1895] 

- 57 - 

BRITISH GUIANA LIMITS 

Stead’s Opinion of the American Expression of Sentiment— 

An American Vice Consul’s View 

LONDON, Oct. 24.—William T. Stead, former editor of The Pall Mall Gazette, publishes an 

article in The Westminster Gazette, in which he says that England ought not to belittle the significance 

of the outburst of American sentiment over the Venezuelan question. The Americans, he says, have 

built up a navy which they have reason to be proud of, and the Monroe doctrine is now one of 

national faith. 

When the twentieth century dawns upon us,” he continues, “we will have to recognize the 

United States as a naval power of the first class. Nevertheless,” he concludes, “our case is so strong 

that we need not fear to refer the question to any honest arbitrator, but first reparation must be 

made for violation of our territory.” 

WASHINGTON. Oct 24.—Dr. Spaight, Vice Consul of the United States at Georgetown, 

British Guiana, now in the city, to a United Press reporter to-night, made an emphatic denial of the 

newspaper reports that he was summoned here for a conference with State Department officials in 

Venezuelan affairs. Dr. Spaight characterized the report as an “entire fabrication without a shadow 

of foundation.” 

“I am here,” said he, “simply because it was my pleasure to come. I have lived in British Guiana 

for twenty-seven years, and am off now on one of my periodical vacations. I did not intend, when I 

left home, to come to America and only came here because my people live in the vicinity of 

Springfield, Mass. I was here last in 1891. 

“Neither Secretary Olney nor any other official sent for me, and I leave town to-morrow 

morning. I would not know Mr. Olney if I saw him. I called upon Mr. Uhl for a moment only, and 

left my card. That is the extent at my visit to the department.” 

Mr. Spaight has at home one of the maps showing the boundary between Guiana and Venezuela 

proposed before thee year 1800. This map is rare, only a few copies being in existence. Dr. Spaight is 

quoted as saying that this map proves the territory where gold has been found to be English soil, 

and he is further quoted as saying that Venezuela never claimed it until gold was discovered, and 

67


that the United States will make a mistake if she endeavors to assert the Monroe doctrine in 

connection therewith. 

[25 October 1895] 

- 58 - 

CHAMBERLAIN IS RIDICULED 

If a Maxim Gun Were Stationed on the Uruan 

It Would Be Taken 

WASHINGTON, Oct. 25.—The Daily Chronicle of Sept 27, a newspaper published at 

Georgetown, Demerara, containing the full text of the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain’s letter to 

the Governor of British Guiana, was received here to-day. The salient points of the letter appeared 

in the London dispatches of The United Press a week ago. 

These were, briefly, that Mr. Chamberlain recommended the placing of a Maxim gun at the point 

on the Uruan River where the Colonial Inspector and his assistants were arrested by the Venezuelan 

forces, and the establishment of a similar gun at another point along the frontier. 

Mr. Chamberlain’s letter also suggested the advisability of cutting a wagon road from Port 

Berema, a distance of 150 miles southeast through the rich gold fields in the disputed territory, and 

coupled with this was a request that the merchants of Georgetown should furnish the money to 

build it. Appreciating the scarcity of the police force at Georgetown, Mr. Chamberlain 

recommended that the corps of firemen in the city be abolished and their membership added to that 

of the local police in order to augment the latter’s ranks. 

Mr. Chamberlain’s recommendations, if The Daily Chronicle fairly reflects public opinion in 

Demerara, do not meet the wishes of the colonists. The Chronicle editorially ridicules the British 

Secretary for the Colonies. It says that the only effect of the planting of a Maxim gun on the Uruan 

would be its capture by the infuriated Venezuelans, thus affording an instructive object lesson of 

British incapacity to protect her own interests, inasmuch as the British constabulary at that place are 

so few in numbers that they could be easily overcome by the Venezuelans on the opposite bank of 

the river. 

The Chronicle shows that it would take seven weeks at least to transport the gun from 

Georgetown, and that the citizens of that place are too poor to consider seriously the proposition to 

build the road to the gold fields at their own expense. So far as abolishing the corps of firemen is 

concerned, that suggestion, the paper said, should not be tolerated for a moment. 

Mr. Chamberlain’s letter to the Governor of British Guiana was written about the 1st of 

September, a fortnight or so after the receipt of Secretary Olney’s memorandum to Lord Salisbury, 

in which he elaborated the interpretation put by this Government upon the Monroe doctrine. The 

shortness of time which elapsed between the issuance of Mr. Olney’s note and the forwarding of 

Mr. Chamberlain’s letter to the Governor of British Guiana is regarded by diplomats as an odd 

coincidence, if it be not full of significance. 

Although the arrest of the colonial police occurred a year ago, no notice was taken of the matter 

by the British authorities except a sharp note demanding an explanation, and requesting from 

Venezuela a promise that her soldiers should not cross to the right bank of the Uruan. 

68


To these requests the Venezuelan Government, it is said, replied with an emphatic negative, 

since a promise to remain on one side of the stream would be a tacit admission that the remainder 

of the territory was a British possession, an admission that Venezuela cannot, it is claimed, be 

persuaded to make. 

The revival of the incident at this late day is construed by diplomats to mean that the boundary 

dispute is the inspiration of England’s so-called ultimatum, and that for this reason her request for 

an apology and a possible indemnity will meet with an emphatic refusal. 

[26 October 1895] 

- 59 - 

VENEZUELA YELLOW BOOK 

A Summary in Two Letters of the Quarrel with Great Britain 

BARON DE BODMAN’S OBSERVATIONS 

Reply of Minister Rojas, Saying that a Peaceful Settlement 

of the Boundary Lines Is Desired 

WASHINGTON, Oct. 25.—The Venezuelan yellow book for 1894, which has been received 

here, contains two letters of special interest at the present time, in view of the situation between 

Great Britain and Venezuela. Both of these concern the Uruan incident, which in the yellow book is 

called the “incident on the right hank of the Cuyuni.” The first is from Baron de Bodman, Chargé 

d’Affaires of Germany and of the protection of British interests in Venezuela, and the other is the 

answer of the Venezuelan Minister of Foreign Affairs, to whom Baron de Bodman’s note was 

addressed. The text of Baron de Bodman’s note follows: 

Last Thursday, in consequence of a telegraphic communication from my Government, I had the honor, in my 

capacity as Chargé of the protection of British interests in Venezuela, to protest, in the name of the Royal Cabinet 

of Great Britain, against a violation of the frontier of British Guiana committed by Venezuelan soldiers on the 

Cuyuni River. At the same time I expressed the wish of the English Government that the officer commanding the 

Venezuelan troops on the Cuyuni River should receive orders to prohibit his soldiers from crossing the river, as well 

as from cutting down trees on its right bank. 

Your Excellency had the goodness to promise me a reply, after consulting the Council of Ministers. As I am 

desirous of settling the matter in a satisfactory manner to the parties interested, I would be very much obliged to 

your Excellency if you would give me an answer as soon as possible. 

The following is Minister Rojas’ answer: 

The Government of the republic has taken into consideration your Excellency’s 

communication, which reached this department day before yesterday, when I was absent from 

Caracas, in which your Excellency referring to the telegram of which you had been informed in 

our conference of last Thursday, and in your capacity of Chargé of the protection of British 

interests in Venezuela, urgently requests a reply as to the supposed violation of the frontier of 

British Guiana on the Cuyuni River, which reply, as is inferred from your Excellency’s language, 

69


is expected to give assurances that the Venezuelan soldiers shall not cross that river, nor cut trees 

on its right bank. 

Your Excellency has doubtless already seen that this matter relates to the well-known 

question of the boundary between the Republic of Venezuela and the English colony of 

Demerara. As soon as England decided not long ago upon an occupation of the portion of 

territory in dispute, which did not originally include the Cuyuni region to which the telegram 

refers, and which is well known to be Venezuelan territory, the republic made a solemn protest, 

and reserved to itself the right to prove its title by very fair means, which, induced by a spirit of 

conciliation, it has ever since earnestly urged upon her Majesty’s Government. Successive 

advances of the line of British occupation gave rise to new protests, which finally became the 

repeated appeal to the rights which the republic evidently possesses in this dispute. 

Thus, on the 20th February, 1887, the 15th June, and 29th October, 1888, the 16th 

December, 1889, the 1st September, 1890, the 30th December, 1891, and lastly on the 26th 

August and 6th October, 1893, that is to say, every time that any measure of the colonial 

authorities appeared to be extending the space of the occupation to the open violation of the 

status quo agreed upon in~ 1850, Venezuela opposed the voice of right and justice to the acts 

exercised by Great Britain within a territory which the republic regards as belonging to itself, as 

shown by geographical historical documents of high reputation, many of them English, by local 

traditions deserving of respect, and by acts of jurisdiction on the part of the commissioners or 

agents of his Catholic Majesty, extant in public treaties, prior to that of Aug. 13, 1814 by which 

Holland ceded to Great Britain her colonies of Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice. 

According to the reports, of which the Venezuelan Government is already in possession, the 

incident on the right bank of the Cuyuni was occasioned by a threat addressed by an agent of the 

Government of Demerara, calling himself inspector of that district, to a Venezuelan named 

Loreto Lira, a farmer, who has been settled there for many years, and by the clearing of some 

land by some of Lira’s countrymen, who arrived some days after the celebration on that bank of 

the river, of the festival in commemoration of the independence of Venezuela (July 5) at Lira’s 

house, and at the house of a woman named Manuela Casanas. 

It is known that this same colonial agent who had addressed the threat to Lira told him 

subsequently that he might continue his work without the slightest uneasiness; and it is also 

shown that after the patriotic demonstrations indulged in on the 5th of July at the houses of Lira 

and Señora Casanas, by a Captain and eight soldiers coming from the general commissariat of 

the Upper Cuyuni, Inspector Gallagher’s successor, named Douglas Barnes, asked permission to 

cross the river and present his friendly respects to the Venezuelan authorities. 

In spite of the manner in which the colonial agents have been acting in the occupation of 

territory which Venezuela regards as included within her boundaries, the authorities established 

by the republic within that district have always been instructed in the most earnest manner to 

avoid, so far as consistent with the National honor, all cause of collision with the Demerara 

agents, as the Government is desirous of settling the boundary question by peaceful means, 

without embittering this old dispute. 

The assurances which are now requested would be equivalent, in view of the aspect which 

the question now presents, and as your Excellency will easily perceive, to a tacit declaration in 

favor of England’s designs, and would be in actual opposition to the protests previously made by 

the republic, which she maintains in all their force, and which I have just enumerated for the 

sake of greater clearness, and in making this communication to your Excellency I fulfill my 

70


instructions to renew to the British Government, through your kind intervention, the expression 

of Venezuela’s earnest desire to put an end to this vexatious dispute by the peaceful measures 

recommended by modern law, to which England herself frequently appeals, like the enlightened 

nation that she is, which has co-operated so greatly in the work of modern civilization. 

[26 October 1895] 

- 60 - 

ENGLAND’S TROUBLE IN VENEZUEA 

A New View of the Monroe Doctrine Advanced by Sir George Baden-Powell 

and Advocated by the Press 

By The United Press 

LONDON, Oct. 26.—. . . [T]he [English] papers are almost unanimous in their expressions with 

regard to the dispute with Venezuela, not only as regards reparation for the arrest of British officers, 

but also as regards the rejection of the suggestion that the difficulty regarding the boundary be 

arbitrated. The papers declare that the different frontiers are due to Venezuelan aggression, and that 

the Schomburgk line is now the minimum frontier. 

So far as the Monroe doctrine is concerned, Sir George Baden-Powell and other Conservative 

members of the House of Commons have taught the press of their party an ingenious argument. 

The papers on Wednesday last published a letter from Sir George Baden-Powell, in which he said 

that Great Britain was an established American power in the West Indies and all the great Canadian 

dominions long before the United States came into existence, and in British Honduras and British 

Guiana since early in this century. British interests were domiciled in America before the United 

States were ever dreamed of. It is as an American power that Great Britain has the duty and privilege 

of working with the other American powers to enforce respect for international obligations and to 

promote the prosperity of those portions of the American continent for which she is responsible. 

The greater portion of the press, both Conservative and Liberal, is beginning to develop this idea 

with parrotlike complacency. The only notable hostile voice is that of The Tablet, the recognized and 

influential organ of the Catholics. After asking why Great Britain persists in her refusal to arbitrate 

the questions in dispute, The Tablet to-day proceeds to say that, as there cannot be an independent 

future for a British settlement in South America, there could be no objection to allowing Venezuela 

to purchase the British rights. This suggestion will fall heedless on British ears, for, as The Speaker 

to-day says, the British are destined to witness a revival of Jingoism, and, for the moment, the anti- 

Jingo party is virtually defunct. 

[27 October 1895] 

71


- 61 - 

NO DESIRE FOR TROUBLE 

England Not Anxious to Quarrel with the United States 

THE VENEZUELAN MEMORANDUM 

LONDON, Nov. 2.—Prime Minister Salisbury has handed over to the Right Hon. Joseph 

Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the Colonies, the memorandum transmitted to him by the 

United States Government, through Ambassador Bayard, relative to the Venezuelan question. Mr. 

Chamberlain still holds the opinion that the United States has no right to interfere in Great Britain’s 

dispute with Venezuela, but he will draft a detailed reply to the memorandum, which Lord Salisbury 

will shortly send to Mr. Bayard. The tone of the reply will probably be moderate and amicable as the 

Government has no desire to become involved in a dispute with the United States, its attention now 

being fully devoted to matters that are more important than the Guiana boundary question. 

Mr. Chamberlain will begin immediately a consideration of the details of his great plan to 

develop the Crown colonies. This subject will occupy most of his time until the reassembling of 

Parliament, on Nov. 15. The plan largely concerns Africa, but it will also aim to encourage the 

commercial interests of British Guiana, and to assist Dominica. . . 


- 62 - 

BRITISH ULTIMATUM ASTRAY 

Caracas Has No News of Even a Note of Inquiry to Venezuela 

WASHINGTON, D. C., Nov. 8.—Mail advices from Caracas received to-day, bearing date of 

Nov. 1, say that no ultimatum from Great Britain with reference to the Uruan incident had yet 

reached the Venezuelan capital. 

The belief which has long been entertained at Washington that the so-called ultimatum is only a 

short note of inquiry is shared by official circles in Venezuela, who claim that it does not appear that 

even this admonition has yet been delivered by the German Chargé d’Affaires, to whom, in the 

absence or a British representative at Caracas, it is supposed is to have been intrusted. 

The Caracas newspapers have no information with respect to the matter except The United 

Press dispatches which were cabled to them from New York. 


- 63 - 

BRITISH GUIANA WARLIKE 

Crisis in Dispute with Venezuela on Boundaries Approaching 

72


ENTHUSIASM OF THE COLONISTS 

Forces Drilled, Police at Rifle Practice, Inspectors at Uruan, 

and Appropriation for Expense Voted 

GEORGETOWN, Demerara, B. G., Nov. 8.—That the crisis in the dispute between Great 

Britain and Venezuela as to the boundaries of the republic is approaching cannot longer be doubted. 

The Administrator of British Guiana, acting upon Instructions from the imperial Government. 

has made a declaration to the British Guiana Legislature which clearly indicates that unless 

Venezuela withdraws her claims to the greater part of the territory in dispute the imperial 

Government is prepared to assert the rights of British Guiana by force of arms, and the colonial 

Legislature has voted to the Governor in executive council an open check for war expenses for 

colonial and imperial forces. 

The situation now generally accepted here is that this long-standing dispute will only be settled 

by force of arms, and that it is only a question of weeks before the roar of cannon and clash of arms 

are heard again in the South American Republic, and the British Guianaians openly boast that they 

have the men and the money for the assertion of their territorial rights. Within the last few days 

there has been a wonderful change effected in the talk and temperament of the people. 

Instead of the frequent expressions of disgust and dissatisfaction with the masterly inactivity of 

the imperial authorities, the people speak hopefully of a speedy settlement of a dispute which has 

seriously retarded the development of the mineral resources of the colony. They point to the fact 

that, while there are vast stretches of territory with gold deposits to be developed the unsettled 

question as to boundaries and the probable recurrence of such incidents as that which took place at 

Uruan, the necessary capital for the developing of the gold industry has been withheld, and that for 

no other reason than the lack of security on the frontier. But now, by a sharp and decisive blow at 

what they term “Venezuelan arrogance,” they hope to change all this very shortly, and so hail the 

prospect of a speedy return of prosperity to the British colony. 

There can be no doubt that the openly avowed dissatisfaction of the people, the freely expressed 

opposition by their representatives in the colonial Legislature to the dictates of the Colonial Office, 

and the positive refusal to sanction the expenditures of any moneys for Governmental schemes until 

the colony was assured whether the imperial Government was prepared to support them in asserting 

their rights on the frontier, and to obtain redress for the Uruan incident, has necessitated, if not 

forced, a public declaration from the imperial Government, through its local representative. 

Of course, international courtesies require that his Excellency, the administrator, in making the 

declaration, should only do so in the most guarded terms; but on the other band, a dissatisfied 

people had to be appeased, and the readiness with which an open check was voted to the 

Government is sufficient proof of how admirably the administrator succeeded in satisfying the 

representative members of the Legislature. 

It may be confidently assumed and believed, said his Excellency, in the course of his speech, that 

steps are being taken to bring the long standing question as to the boundaries of the land to a 

satisfactory point. With that question settled, he need not say how much brighter would be the 

outlook, how much more solid would be the foundations on which schemes will be put forward for 

the development of the interior and the opening up of the riches which exist there: The steps to 

which he had referred are being advanced in no half-hearted way. There may be temporary delays, as 

there always must be in matters of such a nature and in international questions, but the subject will 

not be allowed to drag or be put aside until it is finally settled. 

73


The mother country means that the rights and privileges and possessions of this one of her 

children—and by no means one of the least or least important of them—should be upheld and 

secured, and it would be but poor policy on the part of the colony if they did not show to those who 

advise her Majesty that they (the colonists) do not mean to be lagging behind in assisting the 

attainment of this most desirable end. The proposal that would be put before them that day was 

simply this—that in case of necessity, they should empower the Government to add its quota 

toward the security of their great province, the upholding of its dignity, and the assertion of its 

territorial rights. That was all that would be asked from them that day. 

The Government Secretary then submitted the following resolution: 

“Whereas, It may become necessary for the better security of the colony, in case of mergency, that increased 

expenditure should be incurred under defensive heads; be it 

“Resolved, That this court undertakes to provide such expenditure as may be necessary, to be appropriated as 

the Governor in council may determine.” 

The vote was passed unanimously, and the Attorney General, on behalf of the Government, said 

that the vote would be most gratifying to her Majesty’s Government, as it would show that, while 

they were prepared to act resolutely in this matter, the colony was also prepared to be equally 

resolute, and that they were prepared to stand by her Majesty’s Government to the fullest extent of 

their means. They all joined in deprecating hostilities, but in the event of such a contingency 

expenditures would arise which would naturally fall upon the colony, such as the making of the 

preparations for the arrival of the troops, while her Majesty’s Government might, of course, wish 

the local forces to be employed, either alone or in conjunction with the imperial troops, in the 

settlement of this question. 

Within the past few days there has been a marked increased activity in the local official circles; 

the colonial forces are being regularly drilled, and the military police corps are at frequent rifle 

practice. 

His Excellency the acting Governor and other officials have made a visit to the Northwest 

district (the disputed territory,) and inspectors have been dispatched to Uruan on a visit of 

inspection. 

On every hand the indications are that, should force be resorted to, neither the Government nor 

the people will be unprepared for taking active military steps, and the general opinion entertained 

here is that the solution of the Venezuelan boundary problem will be speedy and effective. 


- 64 - 

COLONIAL OFFICE AND GUIANA ARDOR 

LONDON, Nov. 25.—The Post will to-morrow say that nothing is known at the Colonial 

Office regarding the statements reported to have been made by the officer administering the 

Government of British Guiana to the effect that unless Venezuela withdraws her claims to the 

74


greater part of territory in dispute the imperial Government was prepared to assert the rights of the 

colony by force of arms. 


- 65 - 

Venezuela Affair Still Undecided 

LONDON, Nov. 26.—Prime Minister Salisbury has not yet replied to the memorandum of Mr. 

Olney, the American Secretary of State, on the Venezuelan affair. The Foreign Office declines to 

state whether the reply will be transmitted through Ambassador Bayard or Sir Julian Pauncefote, the 

British Ambassador in Washington. 


- 66 - 

CRESPO PREPARING FOR BATTLE 

He and the Governors Count Forces Available 

to Expel Settlers from British Guiana on Venezuelan Land 

WASHINGTON, Nov. 27.—President Crespo has been cautiously sounding the Governors of 

the different provinces of the republic as to the forces which they can put into the field in case of 

war. 

Assurances, it is said, were given to him that a well-equipped army of 100,000 men could be 

mobilized, in case the President determined upon a movement against the British Guianan settlers 

on what is claimed to be Venezuelan territory. 


75


76


- Part 3 - 

1-18 December 1895 

77

1 - 18 December 1895 

78


- 67 - 

Britain’s Reply Sent to Pauncefote 

LONDON, Nov. 30.—It was learned from the Foreign Office to-day that Lord Salisbury’s 

answer to the American note outlining the Monroe doctrine in connection with the Venezuelan 

dispute, has just been mailed to Sir Julian Pauncefote, British Ambassador at Washington. 

[1 December 1895] 

- 68 - 

COMMENT ACROSS THE WATER 

Views of English Newspapers on the President’s Message 

LONDON, Dec. 3.—The Daily News, commenting on President Cleveland’s message to 

Congress, will say to-morrow: 

A worse financial muddle than Mr. Cleveland stated it would be difficult to conceive. Such is the result of 

tampering with the currency for the supposed relief of powerful interests. It is worth the attention of our own 

currency doctors. 

The News will refer to the Venezuela dispute as a matter in which the United States is not 

concerned directly. On this point it says: 

The principle of arbitration is invaluable, but its friends should beware of straining it unduly. The 

comparative weakness of Venezuela does not give that country exceptional rights. Arbitration has 

nothing to do with the relative strength of the parties. The President’s message is silent regarding the 

outrage on the British Guiana police. It is neither dignified nor politic for Washington to take up the 

quarrels of South American communities which do not observe the usages of civilized nations. The 

United States will find out some day that this sort of patronage involves corresponding responsibility 

and will not like it at all. . . 

The Standard will say: 

The maintenance of friendly relations between Great Britain and the United States is of such supreme 

importance that we cannot but regret the tone in which President Cleveland alluded to the dispute with Venezuela. 

If we may judge the tone and substance of the dispatch addressed to Ambassador Bayard in July from the 

paraphrase communicated to Congress we are not in the least surprised that no answer has yet been received. We 

undertake to predict that when the answer reached the White House it will furnish the President with much matter 

for serious reflection. We have far too much confidence in the strength and generosity of American character to 

believe for a moment that the President will be sustained in his position by the better order of transatlantic 

sentiment. 

The Standard disavows any wish to treat the message with disrespect, but says that the whole 

passage relative to Venezuela is a tissue of unreal assumptions and unsupported deductions. It adds 

that it is obviously for the people of the United States to decide whether at any time they will 

79

1 - 18 December 1895 

forcibly prevent a European power from forcibly increasing its possessions on the American 

continent. If they wish to carry out this view they will do so after due calculation of the cost, but this 

has nothing to do with Great Britain’s right to vindicate her title to territory which she holds to be 

her own without interference from the outside. 

Regarding the mode of enforcing the British claim, the paper asks: 

Does Mr. Cleveland seriously suggest that because a State is insignificant it is to be exempt from the ordinary 

consequences of aggression on a powerful neighbor? Has he ever adopted this singular principle where wrong has 

been done to the United States? Of course not, and he must not teach a virtue that he declines to practice. He insists 

that there must be arbitration; that Venezuela is to define the issues, and that Great Britain is to submit meekly to 

the award. 

The Morning Post will say: 

. . . The President appears to assume that England must be wrong because she is stronger than Venezuela. 

The Chronicle will say: 

. . . Few honest critics can say anything against the references to Venezuela. We agree that the matter is 

eminently suited for impartial arbitration. No doubt the British Government will take the same view when 

reparation for injuries due to us from Venezuela is made. 

Every Liberal will acquiesce in the doctrine enunciated by Mr. Cleveland that our hands are full enough 

without increasing our burdens in America, especially at the risk of creating a serious strain with a great power, 

whose friendship is more valuable to us than of all others together, but if the United States assumes extra 

territorial authority, they render themselves answerable in some degree for the faithful discharge of obligations 

by the Central and South American republics. Apparently it is their intention to undertake this serious task. . . 

All the London papers will publish extensive abstracts of the message. 


- 69 - 

THE CLEVELAND DOCTRINE IN VENEZUELA 

In his statement of our relations to the boundary dispute between Venezuela and Great Britain 

President Cleveland has enunciated a doctrine that would become as famous in history as Mr. 

Monroe’s great declaration were it not for the fact that the interests and the designs of the European 

powers are diminishing factors in New World affairs. It is not the Monroe doctrine that Mr. 

Cleveland affirms. The hasty commentators on his message who assume that it is that doctrine miss 

the point entirely The positions taken by President Monroe were quite outside the domain of 

possible arbitration. But Mr. Cleveland declares that Great Britain’s boundary dispute with 

Venezuela “can be reasonably settled only by friendly and impartial arbitration.” The distinction is 

fundamental and as wide as the seas that separate these disputants. 

No part of the message will be more attentively scrutinized than the passage in which the 

President treats of this subject, nor will any other be more fruitful of discussion. It contains the 

80


substance of the July dispatch to Ambassador Bayard and will awaken the liveliest public desire for 

the perusal of that document in its entirety. Our attitude was “fully and distinctly set forth,” says the 

President, being, in substance “that the traditional and established policy of this Government is 

firmly opposed to a forcible increase by any European power of its territorial possessions on this 

continent; that this policy is as well founded in principle as it is strongly supported by numerous 

precedents; that, as a consequence, the United States is bound to protest against the enlargement of 

the area of British Guiana in derogation of the rights and against the will of Venezuela,” and that in 

the impartial arbitration which opens the only avenue to a reasonable settlement the “whole 

controversy” should be included, as it would not be satisfactory “if one of the powers concerned is 

permitted to draw an imaginary line through the territory in debate and to declare that it will submit 

to arbitration only the part lying on one side of it.” The dispatch, therefore, calls upon the British 

Government to give a “definite answer to the question whether it would or would not submit the 

territorial controversy in its entirety to impartial arbitration.” 

Now, Mr. Monroe’s celebrated doctrine consisted of three leading affirmations: 

(1) That “the American continents are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future 

colonization by any European powers.” (2) That as we have on just principles announced the 

independence of the various American Republics, “we could not view any interposition for the 

purpose of oppressing them or controlling in any other manner their destiny by any European 

power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United 

States.” (3) “It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any 

portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness,” or “that we should 

behold such interposition in any form with indifference.” 

None of these positions furnishes matter for arbitration. The Monroe doctrine is nowhere 

conditionally permissive. It prohibits on pain of our displeasure—that is, of giving us probable cause 

for war. Mr. Cleveland’s proposition is that Great Britain may have the disputed territory, and be 

welcome to it, if she can establish her title before an honest arbitrator. But she must not attempt “a 

forcible increase” of her possessions as against Venezuela, and she must let the whole belt go to 

arbitration, not merely that part west of the Schomburgk line. 

This is not the Monroe doctrine, it is the Cleveland doctrine; and it is a mighty stiff and firm 

utterance. Translated into action it means that Great Britain must not attempt to seize territory of 

which Venezuela contests the possession, and that she must abandon the Schomburgk line and all 

other “lines”—Aberdeen, Granville, Rosebery, and what not—and retiring behind the Esequibo 

River, the original boundary of British Guiana under her rights of succession, must let the arbitrator 

judge between her and Venezuela as to all territory west of that stream. This is a serious abatement 

of her pretensions. It she accepts this proposition, she and Venezuela will enter the court of 

arbitration on even terms. Otherwise she will enjoy the advantages which, according to her 

notorious custom, she has from time to time obtained by encroachment perpetrated against 

Venezuela’s protests. 

Unlike Mr. Monroe’s doctrine, which, in some of its applications, would lead to war, Mr. 

Cleveland’s doctrine unmistakably tends to peace. He proposes to “have peace if he has to fight for 

it” by enforcing arbitration. 

This reaffirmation or American belief in the adequacy of arbitration for the adjustment of 

international differences is important to a degree not easily overestimated. It foreshadows the 

broadening of the principle, to which the message several times refers, and is a better guarantee of 

peace than are battleships and bayonets. 

81

1 - 18 December 1895 

The counsel he gives in such firm tones is so plainly disinterested that no reasonable power, no 

nation not possessed of the instincts of a bully, would venture to disregard it. 


- 70 - 

What the President Said About Venezuela Last Year 

From President Cleveland’s Message, Dec. 3, 1894: 

The boundary of British Guiana still remains in dispute between Great Britain and 

Venezuela. Believing that its early settlement on some just basis, alike honorable to both parties, 

is in the line of our established policy to remove from this hemisphere all causes of differences 

with powers beyond the sea, I shall renew the efforts heretofore made to bring about a 

restoration of diplomatic relations between the disputants and to induce a reference to 

arbitration, a resort which Great Britain so conspicuously favors in principle and respects in 

practice, and which is earnestly sought by her weaker adversary. 


- 71 - 

Salisbury’s Reply About Venezuela 

LONDON, Dec. 4.—The Pall Mall Gazette says that Lord Salisbury’s reply to the note of 

Secretary of State Olney in regard to the British-Venezuelan dispute, which has been forwarded to 

Washington by mail, should be in the hands of Sir Julian Pauncefote, the British Ambassador to the 

United States, to-day or to-morrow. 


- 72 - 

SALISBURY’S NOTE ON VENEZUELA 

Great Britain Insists that the Schomburgk Boundary Line Should Mark 

the Minimum of Her Territory 

LONDON, Dec. 5.—The papers here will to-morrow say that it has been learned that the reply 

of Lord Salisbury to the recent note of Secretary of State Olney relative to the Venezuelan question, 

which reply is now en route to Washington, discusses at length the history of the question for forty 

82


years, and intimates that Great Britain does not depart from the view that the Schomburgk boundary 

marks the minimum of the territory she possesses in that region. 


- 73 - 

LORD SALISBURY’S REPLY 

His Statement as to the Venezuela Matter Is in Washington 

SAID TO AVOID THE REAL QUESTION 

British Foreign Office Desirous of Gaining Time—The Matter Likely to Come 

Before Congress at an Early Day 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6.—Now that the text of Lord Salisbury’s reply to the Secretary of 

State’s note on the Venezuela dispute is in the hands of Sir Julian Pauncefote, having arrived to-day, 

it is probable that the British Ambassador and the Secretary of State will have some personal 

consultations over its contents. They will meet on even terms, so far as mere acquaintance with the 

text goes, for as Ambassador Bayard received a copy at it prior to its transmission and undoubtedly 

telegraphed a syllabus of it to Secretary Olney, it is assumed he lost no time in forwarding a copy of 

it to the State Department. The facts as reported to-day make it plain that the writers who 

represented Ambassador Bayard as having been overstepped or ignored were more anxious to give 

the impression that he was ill treated than they were to suppose that Great Britain was unfamiliar 

with diplomatic usage. 

President Cleveland’s message acquires additional significance in the light of the undoubted fact 

that he knew the British position as indicated in Lord Salisbury’s answer to Secretary Olney before 

he wrote his lines declaring that it would be unsatisfactory to this country to have a line drawn, upon 

one side of which the territory should be declared not subject to arbitration. 

It already estimated that Lord Salisbury’s letter is one that is artfully designed to protract 

negotiations, as it calls upon the United States for the first time to consider the boundary question 

on its merits. The idea of the British Foreign Office is understood to be to engage the United States 

in a time-consuming examination of claims, proofs, arguments, etc., which must consume months or 

years, and meanwhile afford Great Britain an opportunity to escape from other controversies and be 

able to devote much attention to Venezuela. 

There is no doubt that son after the holidays, probably not before, the President will send to 

Congress the message on Venezuela which he has promised, and with it the correspondence, 

including Lord Salisbury’s answer to Secretary Olney, and that the matter will be the cause of a great 

flood of oratory in the House and the Senate. There are few members so hot and foolish as 

Representative Livingston of Georgia, who says that we want a war, were never in better fettle for it, 

and that we can whip Great Britain hands down. Still, Mr. Livingston does not believe that Great 

Britain would fight us, for commercial reasons, and he therefore is bolder, perhaps, in his defiance 

of the British Empire. 

Representative Hitt, who it to be at the head of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, was a warm 

partisan and a watchful and habitual opponent of the Administration when he was one of the 

minority, but he is not likely to sacrifice his reputation by permitting anything to be done in the 

83

1 - 18 December 1895 

House that would put the United States in the position exaggerating the wrong side of the 

controversy. 

He will be quite sure, before agreeing to an extreme resolution, that the United States will be 

justified in stopping Great Britain wholly from urging demands upon Venezuela, and he will see to it 

that the violation of the territory is the real object before advising action based upon that 

assumption. The applicability of the Monroe doctrine as it is understood by Congress is the first 

thing to be ascertained. If that is made clear, there can be no doubt what the course of the House 

and the Senate will be. 


- 74 - 

SALISBURY MAKES REPLY 

Pauncefote and Olney Discuss the Venezuelan Question 

NO OFFICIAL STATEMENT MADE PUBLIC 

Two Reports as to the Position Taken by the Government of Great Britain— 

The Attitude of the United States in the Matter 

WASHINGTON, Dec.7.—While there appears to be no doubt that the answer of Lord 

Salisbury to Secretary Olney in the Venezuela matter has been received here, and that it has been 

communicated by her Majesty’s Ambassador to the Secretary of State, the public learns those facts 

rather by conjecture than by any communication of the State Department for the general public. 

Intent watchfulness on the part of the person charged with the business was rewarded by the 

sight of Donelson, the messenger at the British Embassy, making a discreet and early call upon the 

Secretary of State, followed by a call of the Ambassador upon Mr. Olney. That was all that could be 

really seen. 

It was only the length of the Ambassador’s visit and the news sent fully from England as to the 

nature of the British reply that gave color to the report that Sir Julia Pauncefote spent the time 

reading to Mr. Olney the language of the declination of Great Britain to submit to arbitration a 

dispute which she feels strong enough to settle in her own way by force. 

Sir Julian Pauncefote ought to be prepared to inform the Government that that the United States 

takes care of diplomatic secrets more religiously than does Great Britain. For while the Salisbury 

reply was outlined from London by telegraph before it arrived here, the State Department remained 

silent, refusing to-day to affirm the London reports. Until the President has returned from the 

Southern trip he began a few days ago and has prepared the message in which he promised the 

Congress to give it latest information about Venezuela, conjecture will continue to be indulged in as 

to the character of the British response to our request that England should submit its Venezuela 

claims to arbitration. 

Two reports have gone out concerning the form of Lord Salisbury’s reply. Very much will 

depend on which one is true. One says that Great Britain refuses to submit to arbitration any of the 

claims made to territory within the Schomburgk line. Another report is that it will not assent to have 

its right discussed to hold any territory now in its possession. A willingness to permit the whole 

84


question to go to arbitration would have contributed to the increase of confidence in the British 

argument. 

The conditions imposed for admitting the territory outside the Schomburgk line are not yet 

suggested, but it is surmised by persons who have studied this question to be of such a character as 

to involve an expenditure of time and an exhaustion of patience that are bound to wear upon the 

Venezuelans and not convince Americans. 

Warlike utterances on this subject are apt to be expressed by persons whose declarations of war 

are not likely to control the Congress. The Administration does not talk arbitration for fear of war, 

but because it is believed that the best interests of the United States may be better served by a policy 

of peace by honorable arbitration than by war and the sacrifice of life and business to maintain an 

imperfectly understood controversy. 

Our interest in Venezuela is not so deep and binding as to oblige the United States to insist that 

the Venezuelans shall not get along as far as possible without cultivating war with European nations, 

nor is our fear of Great Britain so abject as to cause us to fear the consequences of our assertion of a 

policy that may be beneficial to Venezuela under the trying circumstances in which that republic 

finds itself. 


- 75 - 

BRITONS AGAINST ARBITRATION 

Opinion of the English Public on the Venezuelan Case 

LONDON. Dee. 7.—In accordance with unvarying precedent, the reply of Prime Minister 

Salisbury to the note of Richard Olney, the American Secretary of State, on the Venezuelan dispute, 

will not be issued by the Foreign Office until it is presented to Parliament. It will be a surprise to 

every one if Lord Salisbury, in his reply, has not firmly declined to admit the right of the United 

States to interfere in the dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela, especially to insist that the 

whole case shall be submitted to arbitration. 

The English public takes small interest in the dispute or the attitude of the United States on the 

matter. Not the remotest reference to the subject has been made on the political platform during the 

period that the Prime Minister has been wrestling with Mr. Olney’s note and the reply thereto. The 

comments in the press alone indicate the line of British opinion, which, according to the 

newspapers, is unanimously against any arbitration concerning the territory within the Schomburgk 

line. 

The Statist says: 

Neither for its own sake nor ours is it expedient for the United States Government to put forward a claim as of 

right to dictate how we shall conduct a dispute with another country relative to territory that has long been held by 

the British. 

The United States Government is entitled to offer its good offices, but there is a wide distinction between these 

and intervention, based on the round that the United States have the right to forbid any Government in the world 

to enlarge the area under its jurisdiction in any part of the American continent. Still, there is no occasion for heroics. 

85

1 - 18 December 1895 

The bit of territory in dispute is of small value, while good relations with the United States are of the highest value 

to us and civilization. 

The Spectator says: 

President Cleveland addresses Great Britain in the tone of a master in laying down principles so absolutely. His 

sentences read as if Great Britain had been ordered to choose arbitration or war. Negotiations will not be carried on 

in that tone unless the President arid the American people are seeking war, a crime or which we would net even 

mentally accuse them. 

The Economist, treating of the same subject, declares that Mr. Cleveland’s words mean that Great 

Britain must not defend what she considers her own soil against any Spanish-American State, under 

the penalty of the United States declaring war. It is impossible for Lord Salisbury to yield to such 

pretensions, yet it is more difficult for him to deal with them so as to avoid exasperating American 

feelings. His only sensible course is to repudiate seeking for any extension of territory and do 

nothing, leaving on Venezuela or the United States the responsibility for aggression. 

All of these supposed leaders of high-class opinion in England make the usual commonplace 

references to the American vote influencing the utterances of those in political life. 


- 76 - 

SURPRISED AT ENGLAND’S CLAIM 

The Venezuelan Minister’s Views on the Demand for $60,000— 

Says It Is Not an Ultimatum 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 8.—Dr. Andrade, the Venezuelan Minister at Washington, has not been 

informed that the reported demand by Great Britain on his Government for $60,000 as indemnity 

for the arrest of British subjects within the disputed boundary has been received at Caracas. Minister 

Andrade, however, says he will undoubtedly be notified after the matter is placed in President 

Crespo’s hands. He expressed surprise to-night at the report that England should present such a 

claim, and stated that it could not be called an ultimatum, as it was an original demand and there 

would be much correspondence and investigation before it could reach that status. 

Diplomatic relations between Great Britain and Venezuela, he stated, have been suspended for 

some time, and for that reason the German Minister acts as representative of the British 

Government at Caracas. He added that the President of Venezuela was against yielding to the British 

in the present dispute, and would be very likely to object to paying an indemnity. 

The legation here has not been in receipt of news in regard to the revolution in the republic since 

the 1st inst., but the Minister says he does not attach much importance to it as the present 

dispatches state the fighting is entirely confined to the frontier. A mail is expected at the legation tomorrow, 

giving the latest developments in Venezuelan affairs. 


86


- 77 - 

THE JINGOES ARE PUZZLED 

Unable to Find Out What Salisbury Said About Venezuela. 

NOT TALKING MUCH OF WAR NOW 

Possibly They Surmise that England Has Not Assumed a Defiant 

Position After All—No News of the Ultimatum. 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 9.—It is not to be supposed that the jingoes of the Senate and the 

House have received inside information concerning the purport of the response of Lord Salisbury to 

the note of Secretary Olney in the Venezuelan-Guiana boundary question, but for some reason they 

are disposed to pause before letting loose their eloquence upon the assumption that its character is 

such as to demand an instant resort to hostilities between the United States and Great Britain to 

settle the dispute. 

By intuition, perhaps, the idea has taken a lodgment that the answer is anything but defiant. That 

may account, in a measure, for the relaxation of impatience shown by some of his political 

opponents to the departure of the President for North Carolina, and to an abatement of their 

criticism of him for presuming at this time to go off on a duck-hunting trip. 

The Republicans are by no means agreed as to what they shall do if the Salisbury answer shall 

turn out to be couched in language tending to delay in making a definite answer to our renewed 

request for arbitration. The President would have had no power to do less than he did in calling for 

an answer to that question, instructed as he was by Congress. He plainly has no power to act in such 

a way as to provoke a collision, as Congress alone possesses that right. While it might be considered 

a good political stroke to bring on a war, a war with Great Britain would disturb business seriously, 

and business men are not likely to be more anxious for war as a disturber of business with our best 

foreign customer than they are to have domestic and foreign business deranged by a new tariff 

measure. 

There may be calls upon the President for the Venezuelan correspondence, which he told 

Congress he expected to communicate to that body, but the resolutions have first to go through the 

two houses, and alter that the President is bound to pay regard to the consideration whether it is 

compatible with the public interest to communicate correspondence upon a question still under 

advisement. 

There is no longer any doubt that the Administration knew, before the arrival of the Salisbury 

letter in the hands of Ambassador Pauncefote, the nature of its contents, and was prepared to 

respond to it. The going away of the President would not necessarily make any difference in the 

disposition of the matter. Secretary Olney understands the President’s position thoroughly, and 

doubtless will have prepared for him precisely the language of rejoinder to Lord Salisbury that the 

Government of the United States shall feel constrained to make to the last British communication. 

The Venezuelan Minister this evening received from the Director of Foreign Relations, a 

cablegram announcing that the country was perfectly peaceful. Minister Andrade says this is 

evidently an answer to a letter he sent to his Government ten days ago which probably has just 

reached Caracas. 

In that letter he called attention to the frequent reports published In this country of the unsettled 

state of affairs in Venezuela, and recounting details of a widespread revolution against Gen. Crespo. 

87

1 - 18 December 1895 

Minister Andrade considers to-day’s dispatch conclusive, and is confident that no revolutionary 

movement exists. The cablegram mentions no other matters, and the Minister is still unable to say 

whether any ultimatum from Great Britain has been presented or not. 

State Department officials are confident that some mistake has been made in the assertion that 

Great Britain has presented a peremptory demand on Venezuela for £12,000 as ‘smart” money an 

account of the Yuruan incident. They are disposed to doubt altogether that any so-called ultimatum 

such as that presented to Nicaragua has been sent to Venezuela at all, but they say if a note 

demanding redress for a supposed indignity has been addressed to President Crespo, it is incredible 

that it should ask for such an exorbitant amount as $60,000. The highest figure given at the time of 

the drafting of the so-called ultimatum last October was £1,000, and considering the nature of the 

incident, this was considered rather a fancy valuation for the character of the alleged insult to a 

colonial policeman. 

Police Inspector Barnes of the British Guiana Colonial Police, was in charge at the station on the 

Yuruan River, a considerable distance to the west of the Schomburgk line, which, according to Lord 

Salisbury’s retort to Secretary Olney, is claimed as the British western boundary. Some Venezuelan 

soldiers in November, a year ago, crossed the river and arrested Barnes and two of his men as 

squatters and took them off toward Guacipati for trial. On the way they were met by Venezuelan 

officials who promptly released the Englishmen with profuse apologies and took the soldiers into 

custody. 

The Venezuelan Government immediately made a formal disavowal of the arrest and instituted 

military proceedings against all the Venezuelan soldiers directly or indirectly responsible for the 

affair, including the Captain of the company in that district, Dominguez, who was degraded, but 

escaped front the country before trial. 

Barnes alleged that articles had been stole from his station at the time of his arrest worth about 

300 bolivars, equal to about $60, and this amount was promptly paid him, for which he gave a 

receipt as full compensation and expressed complete satisfaction. 

No more was thought of the matter until the announcement in October that Great Britain had 

determined to regard it as an international affront, requiring $5,000 smart money as an emollient for 

her injury. As it was alleged that the so-called ultimatum was sent to Berlin for transmission through 

German channels in October, officials in Washington are at a loss to account for the delay of two 

months in its arrival at Caracas. 


- 78 - 

CRESPO ON SALISBURY’S NOTE 

A Distinct Demand for the Attack upon the British Police 

for Which Compensation Would Be Made 

LONDON, Dec. 10.—The Times will to-morrow publish a dispatch from Caracas saying that in 

an interview President Crespo declined to discuss the note sent to the Venezuelan Government by 

Lord Salisbury. 

88


The President did say, however, that he understood that the demand made by Great Britain in 

connection with the attack made upon the British police was distinct from the boundary question. 

The Venezuelan officer who was responsible for the attack would be punished for exceeding his 

duty and the Englishmen would be compensated. He could see no reason why Great Britain should 

intervene in a matter that concerned Venezuela and British Guiana alone. 


- 79 - 

A VENEZUELAN REPORT DENIED 

President Crespo Repudiates Statements Published in London 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 12.—Señor Andrade, the Venezuelan Minister, to-night received a cable 

dispatch from his Government authorizing him to deny published statements to the effect that an 

interviewer for a London paper had obtained from President Crespo statements concerning the 

disposition of his Government on the subject of the British “smart money claim,” and, particularly, 

that part of the report indicating that the boundary question would be treated distinctly between 

Great Britain and Venezuela; that the Venezuelan officer who arrested the British officers would be 

punished for exceeding his instructions, and that the Englishmen would be compensated. 

The cable message received by Mr. Andrade to-night quotes the substance of the foregoing, and, 

while denying it toto, particular stress is laid upon the fact that President Crespo is not to be quoted 

as making any statement regarding the intervention of this country in Venezuelan affairs. 


- 80 - 

VENEZUELAN MISSION DENIED 

Martinez Has No Official Connection With Crespo’s Government 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 13.—Minister Andrade discredits the cabled report from London that 

Señor F. E. Martinez of Caracas is in England on a secret mission from President Crespo to the 

British Government. 

The Minister says that no such person has any authority whatever from the Venezuelan 

President, and has no official connection with the Government. It is quite possible that a 

Venezuelan named Martinez is in London, but that name is a very common one in South America. 

The legation here is fully informed of all Venezuelan affairs, and has authority to deny that any 

secret missions to London or elsewhere exist in fact or are remotely contemplated. 


89

1 - 18 December 1895 

- 81 - 

CLEVELAND’S MESSAGE TO CONGRESS 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 17. – President Cleveland to-day sent the following message to 

Congress, relative to the Venezuela boundary dispute: 

To the Congress: 

In my annual message addressed to the Congress on the 3rd instant I called attention to the 

pending boundary controversy between Great Britain and the Republic of Venezuela and recited the 

substance of a representation made by the Government to Her Britannic Majesty's Government 

suggesting reasons why such dispute should be submitted to arbitration for settlement and inquiring 

whether it would be so submitted. 

The answer of the British Government, which was then awaited, has since been received, and, 

together with the despatch to which it is a reply, is hereto appended. 

Such reply is embodied in two communications addressed by the British Prime Minister to Sir 

Julian Pauncefote, the British ambassador at this capital. It will be seen that one of these 

communications is devoted exclusively to observations upon the Monroe doctrine, and claims that 

in the present instance a new and strange extension and development of this doctrine is insisted on 

by the United States; that the reasons justifying an appeal to the doctrine enunciated by President 

Monroe are generally inapplicable “to the state of things in which we live at the present day,” and 

especially inapplicable to the controversy involving the boundary line between Great Britain and 


Without attempting extended argument in reply to these positions, it may not be amiss to 

suggest that the doctrine upon which we stand is strong and sound, because its enforcement is 

important to our peace and safety as a nation and is essential to the integrity of our free institutions 

and the tranquil maintenance of our distinctive form of government. It was intended to apply to 

every stage of our national life and can not become obsolete while our republic endures. If the 

balance of power is justly a cause for jealous anxiety among the Governments of the Old World, and 

a subject for our absolute noninterference, none the less is an observance of the Monroe doctrine of 

vital concern to our people and their Government. 

Assuming, therefore, that we may properly insist upon this doctrine without regard to “the state 

of things in which we live” or any changed conditions here or elsewhere, it is not apparent why its 

application may not be invoked in the present controversy. 

If a European power by an extension of its boundaries takes possession of the territory of one 

of our neighboring Republics against its will and in derogation of its rights, it is difficult to see why 

to that extent such European power does not thereby attempt to extend its system of government to 

that portion of this continent which is thus taken. This is the precise action which President Monroe 

declared to be “dangerous to our peace and safety,” and it can make no difference whether the 

European system is extended by an advance of frontier or otherwise. 

It also suggested in the British reply that we should not seek to apply the Monroe doctrine to the 

pending dispute because it does not embody any principle of international law which “is founded on 

the general consent of nations,” and that “no statesman, however eminent, and no nation, however 

powerful, are competent to insert into the code of international law a novel principle which was 

90


never recognized before and which has not since been accepted by the government of any other 

country.” 

Practically the principle for which we contend has peculiar, if not exclusive, relation to the 

United States. It may not have been admitted in so many words to the code of international law, but 

since in international councils every nation is entitled to the rights belonging to it, if the enforcement 

of the Monroe doctrine is something we may justly claim, it has its place in the code of international 

law as certainly and as securely as if it were specifically mentioned; and when the United States is a 

suitor before the high tribunal that administers international law the question to be determined is 

whether or not we present claims which the justice of that code of law can find to be right and valid. 

The Monroe doctrine finds its recognition in those principles of international law which are 

based upon the theory that every nation shall have its rights protected and its just claims enforced. 

Of course this Government is entirely confident that under the section of this doctrine we have 

clear rights and undoubted claims. Nor is this ignored in the British reply. The Prime Minister, while 

not admitting that the Monroe doctrine is applicable to present conditions, states: 

In declaring that the United States would resist any such enterprise if it was contemplated, President Monroe 

adopted a policy which received the entire sympathy of the English Government at that date. 

He further declares: 

Though the language of President Monroe is directed to the attainment of objects which most Englishmen would 

agree to be salutary, it is impossible to admit that they have been inscribed by any adequate authority in the code of 

international law. 

Again he says: 

They (Her Majesty's Government) fully concur with the view which President Monroe apparently entertained, that 

any disturbance of the existing territorial distribution in that hemisphere by any fresh acquisitions on the part of any 

European State would be a highly inexpedient change. 

In the belief that the doctrine for which we contend was clear and definite, that it was founded 

upon substantial considerations and involved our safety and welfare, that it was fully applicable to 

our present conditions and to the state of the world’s progress, and that it was directly related to the 

pending controversy, and without any conviction as to the final merits of the dispute, but anxious to 

learn in a satisfactory and conclusive manner whether Great Britain sought under a claim of 

boundary to extend her possessions on this continent without right, or whether she merely sought 

possession of territory fairly included within her lines of ownership, this Government proposed to 

the Government of Great Britain a resort to arbitration as a proper means of settling the question, 

to the end that a vexatious boundary dispute between the two contestants might be determined and 

our exact standing and relation in respect to the controversy might be made clear. 

It will be seen from the correspondence herewith submitted that this proposition has been 

declined by the British Government upon grounds which in the circumstances seem to me to be far 

from satisfactory. It is deeply disappointing that such an appeal, actuated by the most friendly 

feelings toward both nations directly concerned, addressed to the sense of justice and to the 

magnanimity of one of the great powers of the world, and touching its relations to one 

comparatively weak and small, should have produced no better results. 

91

1 - 18 December 1895 

The course to be pursued by this Government in view of the present condition does not appear 

to admit of serious doubt. Having labored faithfully for many years to induce Great Britain to 

submit this dispute to impartial arbitration, and having been now finally apprised of her refusal to do 

so, nothing remains but to accept the situation, to recognize its plain requirements, and deal with it 

accordingly. Great Britain’s present proposition has never thus far been regarded as admissible by 

Venezuela, though any adjustment to the boundary which that country may deem for her advantage 

and may enter into of her own free will can not of course be objected to by the United States. 

Assuming, however, that the attitude of Venezuela will remain unchanged, the dispute has 

reached such a stage as to make it now incumbent upon the United States to take measures to 

determine with sufficient certainty for its justification what is the true divisional line between the 

Republic of Venezuela and British Guiana. The inquiry to that end should of course be conducted 

carefully and judicially, and due weight should be given to all available evidence, records, and facts in 

support of the claims of both parties. 

In order that such an examination should be prosecuted in a thorough and satisfactory manner, I 

suggest that the Congress make an adequate appropriation for the expense of a commission, to be 

appointed by the Executive, who shall make the necessary investigation and report on the matter 

with the least possible delay. When such report is made and accepted it will, in my opinion, be the 

duty of the United States to resist by every means in its power, as a wilful aggression upon its rights 

and interests, the appropriation by Great Britain of any lands or the exercise of governmental 

jurisdiction over any territory which after investigation we have determined of right belongs to 


In making these recommendations I am fully alive to the responsibility incurred and keenly 

realize all the consequences that may follow. 

I am, nevertheless, firm in my conviction that while it is a grievous thing to contemplate the two 

great English-speaking peoples of the world as being otherwise than friendly competitors in the 

onward march of civilization and strenuous and worthy rivals in all the arts of peace, there is no 

calamity which a great nation can invite which equals that which follows a supine submission to 

wrong and injustice and the consequent loss of national self-respect and honor, beneath which are 

shielded and defended a people’s safety and greatness. 

GROVER CLEVELAND 

Executive Mansion, December 17, 1895 


- 82 - 

EXCITING SCENES IN WASHINGTON 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 17.—A degree of excitement that has not been equaled in this city for 

many years was created by the appearance at noon to-day of the special message of the President to 

Congress on the Venezuelan question. Although the message was expected, it was not looked for at 

92


once, and its early appearance, together with its ringing reassertion of the position taken by the 

Administration that England must not be allowed to occupy land in this hemisphere that does not 

belong to her, were at once a surprise and a gratification. 

Prompt and Cordial Approval 

Never before, following a public utterance by President Cleveland or any other recent President, 

have the words of a message been received with such prompt and cordial approval. Men who have 

been seeking little occasions as a ground for criticism of the Administration forgot their 

dissatisfaction in commendation of the resolute opinions expressed by the President, and 

unhesitatingly declare that every American citizen would stand to the last extremity in support of a 

policy so manfully and righteously asserted for the American people. 

Conclusions Carefully Matured 

The President and his Cabinet had kept the President’s intentions a profound secret. It must 

have been known to them that the message of to-day was contemplated, and there is reason to 

believe that it might have been sent in when the annual message was submitted. While the President 

was away, presumably enjoying a hunting trip, he was turning the matter over in his mind, and while 

he was not accompanied by any one with whom he could or would be likely to discuss it, there is no 

doubt that it was the chief topic of reflection, and that the conclusions he reached were those that 

had been matured carefully after the whole matter had been studied out thoroughly and full weight 

had been given in his mind to the consequences that would flow from a resolute challenge of Great 

Britain in the event that the British Empire should refuse to abide by our reiterated demand that the 

boundary question must be submitted to arbitration. 

Its Tenor Known in Advance 

Long before the message was read in the Senate and hours before it became officially known to 

the House of Representatives its contents were familiar to the Senators and the members of the 

House, and by the time the Clerk of the Senate was ready to read it the Capitol was ringing with 

praises of the stirring last paragraph, and everybody who was worth quoting was giving his opinion 

of the document as a whole. The feeling was about the same on both sides of the Senate and the 

House. 

The suggestion for a commission to enable the Congress to learn the merits of the controversy 

was regarded as sure to cause a postponement of serious difficulty with Great Britain in case the 

British authorities should persist in pursuing a policy directly in opposition to what the President has 

declared will be our interest and adherence to our traditional policy, but nowhere was there the 

slightest reservation of approval of the President or of the possibility that support of him would lead 

to an immediate rupture of agreeable relations. 

No Serious Expectation of War 

It cannot be said that there was any strong belief that England would force hostility as a result of 

this controversy. While it is known that there is a British desire to gain valuable gold fields in the 

93

1 - 18 December 1895 

territory of Venezuela to which she has made claim, the value of these lands, it gained, would be 

small compared with the direct and indirect loss that might be suffered by precipitating a conflict 

that might bring on an invasion of Canada and the loss of those colonies to the British Empire. 

May Lead to Salisbury’s Overthrow 

The persistence of the Salisbury Ministry in making the Guiana boundary dispute a cause for 

war, and possibly the loss to England for a protracted period of one of her best customers, it is 

believed will prove extremely unpopular with the British people, and possibly lead to the sudden and 

complete overthrow of the Tory Party on an appeal to the people. 

The trade with Venezuela is of comparative inconsequence; that with the United States is 

constant and immense. If the British regard for commercial activity and business prosperity is not as 

influential as it has been in the past, and there is not full sympathy with Chamberlain in his ambition 

to carry out an aggressive colonial policy at whatever cost, British opinion will not, it is believed, 

support the position of Salisbury in this case. 

Waiting for the British Response 

Upon this British public response, and that at once, as it will be learned tomorrow, will the 

course of the United States Government be shaped in precautionary measures until the report is 

obtained from the commission asked for by the President and which will be at once prove an 

provided for. 

As the Venezuelan side is the one on which the United States authorities have been obliged to 

depend, it is admitted that there may be information to be derived from Great Britain or from 

British sources that may put a somewhat different aspect on some features of the controversy, 

without, however, removing our concern about the recognition of a doctrine that must come to be 

respected by European nations with possible designs of expansion on this continent. 

Venezuela Must Be Treated Decently 

But if the tone and temper of the British people is evil, and the effort to secure Information 

through a commission is not facilitated by the British in Guiana, there is no doubt that our 

Government will push to the utmost the preparations for supporting its demand that Venezuela be 

treated with the decency that that weak and disorganized nation is entitled to receive, and dealt with 

in the same spirit of justice that would be exacted by a nation more capable of supporting emphatic 

demands. 

England’s Commerce at Stake 

While the United States lack readiness for war and is not strong in naval equipment, we have 

some good warships and a few merchant ships that would be able, if armed, seriously to embarrass 

and injure the great commercial marine of England, and the direct loss that would follow the loss of 

ships would be insignificant as compared with the indirect loss suffered by her citizens in the 

interruption of a vast commerce, the loss of buyers of British goods, the advance of prices of food 

in England incidental to an interrupted supply of American breadstuffs and provisions, and the 

94


increased cost to the people of England of maintaining in a distant sea the fleets that might be sent 

to attack American ports. 

To conduct an effective attack upon any one port of the United States would require much 

preparation by the British, and when all was ready there would be exposed to the danger of our 

flying cruisers the coal ships necessary to supply a fighting fleet, the troop ships under convoys with 

small coaling capacity and narrow steaming radius, while the vessels of the United States always 

would be able to keep near ports in which coal supplies could be had after short runs from seaward. 

People Will Support the President 

The cost of war wilt not now deter the American people from supporting the President, and if 

war shall result from the message of to-day, it is believed here that the country will contribute 

generously, if not cheerfully, its share of the cost of providing the men and arms necessary to make 

good all the pretensions that we shall decide to make. 

To declare that we are for right and justice and against wrong and injustice is not an unworthy 

declaration, and the American people will stand by the President in making good the assertion that 

their cause only can be upheld with honor and self-respect by a strict enforcement of the position 

the President bas taken. 


- 83 - 

ENGLAND MUCH SURPRISED 

The Press of London Tries to Belittle the Message 

WAR CONSIDERED WHOLLY IMPROBABLE 

The Monroe Doctrine Not Regarded as Applicable to Present Conditions— 

Salisbury’s Stand Generally Approved 

LONDON, Dec. 17.—All the newspapers of this city will comment upon President Cleveland’s 

message in the morning. 

The Times will say: 

It is impossible to disguise the gravities of the difficulties that have arisen between this country and the United 

States. The message that President Cleveland transmitted to Congress and the reception it met from both sides in 

the Senate give additional importance to the dispatches that have passed between the State Department at 

Washington and the Foreign Office. The details of the boundary dispute with Venezuela are insignificant in 

comparison with the far-reaching claim put forward in Mr. Olney’s dispatch and emphasized in Mr. Cleveland’s 

message. 

Convinced as we are that a rupture between the two great English-speaking communities would be a calamity, 

not only to themselves, but to the civilized world, we are, nevertheless, driven to the conclusion that the concessions 

that this country is imperiously summoned to make are such as no self-respecting nation, and, least of all, one ruling 

an empire that has roots in every quarter of the globe, could possibly submit to. The United States themselves 

would never for a moment dream of yielding to this kind of dictation. We are of the same blood, and shall not be 

less careful of our national honor. We can hardly believe that the course threatened by Mr. Cleveland will be 

95

1 - 18 December 1895 

seriously adopted by the American Government, but, if so, it will be incumbent upon us, without entering upon any 

aggressive measures, to protect our imperial interests and stand up for our rights under international law. 

The Daily News will say: 

The President’s communication is a remarkable document, though its consequences are not likely to be serious. 

Neither Mr. Olney nor the President seems to realize that the Monroe doctrine cannot be quoted as authoritative in 

negotiations with a foreign power. Both of them are certainly as far as possible from suspecting that the real author 

of the doctrine was Canning, not Monroe. 

The definition of the doctrine, however, is a matter for the Americans themselves. It binds nobody else. The 

Venezuelan difficulty must be considered on its own merits. This is what Lord Salisbury has done in a masterly 

dispatch. As he has refused general unrestricted arbitration, upon which, by the way, the Monroe doctrine is silent, it 

must be assumed that he would not assent to the mode of ascertaining the rights or the parties that Mr. Cleveland 

suggests. The President, in his account of the doctrine, surrenders the whole case. What Monroe meant was that the 

United States would resent any European attempt to establish monarchical systems in hostile communities on the 

American Continent. 

The concluding portions of Mr. Cleveland’s message are not expressed in the language usually employed by one 

friendly power to another. They are aggressive, even menacing. England is threatened with war unless she permits 

Mr. Cleveland to adjust the boundaries or Venezuela. Happily, there is some sense of humor in the American 

people. Regarded as a party move the message is not unskillful. It puts the Republicans in a hole. If they agree to the 

appointment of a commission they will give Mr. Cleveland such credit as belongs to it, and will enable him, or the 

Democratic candidate, to pose as an accomplished twister or the lion’s tail. If, on the other hand, they refuse to 

agree to the commission, they will give the Democrats a chance of denouncing them as being servile friends of the 

British. 

But the great body of the American people will not be led by any such motives or considerations. The ordinary 

American citizen cares nothing for Venezuela, and has no feeling against this country. He might be very jealous for 

the Monroe doctrine when it really defended American interests, but the idea of making himself responsible for the 

concerns of every South American republic is too absurd for him to regard it seriously. 

It is not correct to say that Lord Salisbury has altogether rejected the idea of arbitration. On the contrary, he has 

partially accepted it. 

The Chronicle will say to-morrow: 

The message will be read in this country with blank astonishment. An American commission to determine what 

territory a British colony can call its own, and, failing our compliance with its finding, war by land and sea with 

Great Britain! Can these be serious words addressed to us by the descendants of the little shipload of English folks 

who sailed in the Mayflower? We will not take things too seriously. We will suppose that the President is engaged in 

the familiar work of twisting the lion’s tail. 

There is one answer to President Cleveland and America. If an enlarged application of a neglected doctrine is to 

be inforced with all the might of the United States, at least let us be assured of the correlative that the United States 

will make itself responsible for the foreign policy of all the petty, impetuous little States on the two continents of 

America. There is no international right without corresponding duty. 

The paper concludes thus: 

We can only express genuine regret at the tone of the document, which meets no argument made by Lord 

Salisbury, and which applies a threat of force from a daughter State of the motherland over an obscure, trumpery 

dispute in which the United States has no real interest. But the message cannot obscure or defeat the affection 

which subsists between the two countries, or break the ties of blood that must needs bind them in indissoluble 

union. 

The Morning Post will say: 

96


President Cleveland has outdone the Republican Party in his efforts to show dislike for this country, yet he has 

not committed himself to anything. The message does not make the slightest attempt to grapple with Lord 

Salisbury’s arguments that the United States cannot find any excuse in the language of the Monroe doctrine for their 

appearance on the scene, or that, if they could give the old President’s words any such extension, his declaration has 

any authority. The international law tribunal that President Cleveland asks Congress to set up can have no more 

binding effect in this country than would a decision by the Supreme Court at Washington. 

The Standard will say: 

Most Englishmen will read the message with unfeigned astonishment. The position taken by Mr. Cleveland is 

preposterous. No citizen of the United States would for a moment dream of admitting its soundness in any 

analagous case in which the interest or honor of his own country was concerned. The most appropriate comment 

on the situation that would arise from a recognition of the Cleveland dogma is presented by the concluding words 

of the message [which the paper quotes, adding]: 

The message may be a trifle turgid, but the sentiment is wholesome. Yet it is to this act of self-abasement that 

the President imagines he is entitled to bring Great Britain. There can be only one answer to such a demand. We 

decline to humiliate ourselves, and refuse to accept the decision of the United States’s Executive in matters 

altogether outside of its jurisdiction. 

If it could reasonably be made out that the pretensions of the State Department to enforce arbitration 

throughout the American continent had any color in the Monroe doctrine, such an application of the principle 

would be a reductio ad absurdum of a cherished maxim. Happily, however, for the sobriety and endurance of the 

traditions at American diplomacy, Lord Salisbury has effectively disposed of the delusion that the Monroe doctrine 

is in any way pertinent to the question of the Guiana-Venezuela frontier. 

As regards the precise cause of the difference with Venezuela, we believe we have a perfectly stainless record. 

Mr. Olney, to do him justice, refuses to take it for granted that Venezuela has substantiated her case against us, 

though Mr. Cleveland, with a loss at perception, chooses to assume that our action is in derogation of the rights of 

the little republic. As British subjects have settled up to the Schomburgk line, we cannot possibly withdraw our 

protection and leave them to the risks of the revolutions and misrule of the republic, but, beyond the pale of 

settlement we are quite willing to accept arbitration. This however, would be of no avail. Venezuela sets up 

pretensions which, if found valid, would involve the absorption of half of our colony, if not the territory of our 

Dutch and French neighbors. By the same rule the United States might be asked to submit their title to Alaska to 

the judgment of impartial umpires. Congress would immediately reject such a demand. So will the British 

Government reject the present demand. 


- 84 - 

GREAT BRITAIN MUST HALT 

Further Aggressions Cannot Be Tolerated, 

SECRETARY OLNEY’S VIGOROUS WORDS 

The Contentions of Lord Salisbury Answered—Quibbles of Diplomacy Set Aside 

MONROE DOCTRINE HELD INAPPLICABLE 

The Proposition for Arbitration Contemptuously Ignored by the English Ministry 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 17.—The correspondence between the State Department and the British 

Foreign Office touching the Venezuelan boundary dispute was sent to Congress to-day, along with 

the President’s message. The correspondence is voluminous. It is opened by a letter from Secretary 

97

1 - 18 December 1895 

Olney to Ambassador Bayard, to which Salisbury replies in two notes addressed to Minister 

Pauncefote. 


- 85 - 

GOVERNMENT POLICY OUTLINED 

Secretary Olney Tells Ambassador Bayard What Course to Pursue 

WASHINGTON. Dec. 17.—The first letter in relation to the Venezuelan question was dated 

July 20 last, when Secretary Olney wrote to Ambassador Bayard as follows: 

I am directed by the President to communicate to you his views upon a subject to which he has 

given much anxious thought and respecting which he has not reached a conclusion without a lively 

sense of its great importance as well as of the serious responsibility involved in any action now to be 

taken. 

It is not proposed, and for present purposes is not necessary, to enter into a detailed account of 

the controversy between Great Britain and Venezuela respecting the western frontier of the colony 

of British Guiana. The dispute is of ancient date and began at least as early as the time when Great 

Britain acquired by the treaty with the Netherlands of 1814 “the establishments of Demerara, 

Essequibo, and Berbice.” From that time to the present the dividing line between these 

“establishments” (now called British Guiana) and Venezuela has never ceased to be a subject of 

contention. The claims of both parties, it must be conceded, are of a somewhat indefinite nature. 

On the one hand Venezuela, in every constitution of government since she became an independent 

State, has declared her territorial limits to be those of the Captaincy General of Venezuela in 1810. 

Yet out of “moderation and prudence,” it is said, she has contented herself with claiming the 

Essequibo line—the line of the Essequibo River, that is—to be the true boundary between 

Venezuela and British Guiana. On the other hand, at least an equal degree of indefiniteness 

distinguishes the claim of Great Britain. It does not seem to be asserted, for instance, that in 1814 

the “establishments” then acquired by Great Britain had any clearly defined western limits which can 

now be identified and which are either the limits insisted upon today, or, being the original limits, 

have been the basis of legitimate territorial extensions. On the contrary, having the actual possession 

of a district called the Pomaron district, she apparently remained indifferent as to the exact area of 

the colony until 1840, when she commissioned an engineer, Sir Robert Schomburgk, to examine and 

lay down its boundaries. The result was the “Schomburgk line” which was fixed by metes and 

bounds, was delineated on maps, and was at first indicated on the face of the country itself by posts, 

monograms, and other like symbols. 

Venezuela’s Complaint 

If it was expected that Venezuela would acquiesce in this line, the expectation was doomed to 

speedy disappointment. Venezuela at once protested and with such vigor and to such purpose that 

98


the line was explained to be only tentative—part of a general boundary scheme concerning Brazil 

and the Netherlands as well as Venezuela—and the monuments of the line set up by Schomburgk 

were removed by the express order of Lord Aberdeen. Under these circumstances, it seems 

impossible to treat the Schomburgk line as being the boundary claimed by Great Britain as matter of 

right, or as anything but a line originating in considerations of convenience and expediency. Since 

1840 various other boundary lines have from time to time been indicated by Great Britain, but all as 

conventional lines—lines to which Venezuela’s assent has been desired but which in no instance, it 

is believed, have been demanded as matter of right. Thus neither of the parties is today standing for 

the boundary line predicated upon strict legal right—Great Britain having formulated no such claim 

at all, while Venezuela insists upon the Essequibo line only as a liberal concession to her antagonist. 

Venezuela Early Protested 

Several other features of the situation remain to be briefly noticed—the continuous growth of 

the undefined British claim, the fate of various attempts at arbitration of the controversy, and the 

part in the matter heretofore taken by the United States. As already seen, the exploitation of the 

Schomburgk line in 1840 was at once followed by protest of Venezuela and by proceedings on the 

part of Great Britain which could fairly be interpreted only as a disavowal of that line. Indeed—in 

addition to the facts already noticed—Lord Aberdeen himself in 1844 proposed a line beginning at 

the River Moroco, a distinct abandonment of the Schomburgk line. Notwithstanding this, however, 

every change in the British claim since that time has moved the frontier of British Guiana farther 

and farther to the westward of the line thus proposed. The Granville line of 1881 placed the starting 

point at a distance of twenty-nine miles from the Moroco in the direction of Punta Barima. The 

Rosebery line of 1886 placed it west of the Guaima River, and about that time, if the British 

authority known as the “Statesman’s Year Book” is to be relied upon, the area of British Guiana was 

suddenly enlarged by some 33,000 square miles—being stated as 76,000 square miles in 1885 and 

109,000 square miles in 1887. The Salisbury line of 1890 fixed the starting point of the line in the 

mouth of the Amacuro west of the Punta Barima on the Orinoco. And finally, in 1893, a second 

Rosebery line carried the boundary from a point to the west of the Amacuro as far as the source of 

the Cumano River and the Sierra of Usupamo. Nor have the various claims thus enumerated been 

claims on paper merely. 

An exercise of jurisdiction corresponding more or less to such claims has accompanied or 

followed closely upon each and has been the more irritating and unjustifiable if, as is alleged, an 

agreement made in the year 1850 bound both parties to refrain from such occupation pending the 

settlement of the dispute. 

Development of British Guiana 

While the British claim has been developing in the manner above described, Venezuela has made 

earnest and repeated efforts to have the question of boundary settled. Indeed, allowance being made 

for the distractions of a war of independence and for frequent internal revolutions, it may be fairly 

said that Venezuela has never ceased to strive for its adjustment. It could, of course, do so only 

through peaceful methods, any resort to force as against its powerful adversary being out of the 

question. Accordingly, shortly after the drawing of the Schomburgk line, an effort was made to settle 

the boundary by treaty, and was apparently progressing towards a successful issue when negotiations 

99

1 - 18 December 1895 

were brought to an end in 1844 by the death of the Venezuelan Plenipotentiary. Venezuela in 1848 

entered upon a period of civil commotions which lasted for more than a quarter of a century, and 

the negotiations thus interrupted in 1844 were not resumed until 1876. In that year Venezuela 

offered to close the dispute by accepting the Moroco line proposed by Aberdeen. But, without 

giving reasons for his refusal, Lord Granville rejected the proposal and suggested a new line 

comprehending a large tract of territory all pretension to which seemed to have been abandoned by 

the previous action of Lord Aberdeen. Venezuela refused to assent to it, and negotiations dragged 

along without result until 1882, when Venezuela concluded that the only course open to her was 

arbitration of the controversy. Before she had made any definite proposition, however, Great Britain 

took the initiative by suggesting the making of a treaty which should determine various other 

questions as well as that of the disputed boundary. 

Arbitration Was Accepted 

The result was that a treaty was practically agreed upon with the Gladstone government in 1886 

containing a general arbitration clause under which the parties might have submitted the boundary 

dispute to the decision of a third power or of several powers in amity with both. Before the actual 

signing of the treaty, however, the administration of Mr. Gladstone was superseded by that of Lord 

Salisbury, which declined to accede to the arbitration clause of the treaty notwithstanding the 

reasonable expectations of Venezuela to the contrary based upon the Premier’s emphatic declaration 

in the House of Lords that no serious government would think of not respecting the engagements 

of its predecessor. 

Since then Venezuela on the one side has been offering and calling for arbitration, while Great 

Britain on the other has responded by insisting upon the condition that any arbitration should relate 

only to such of the disputed territory as lies west of a line designated by herself. As this condition 

seemed inadmissible to Venezuela and as, while the negotiations were pending, new appropriations 

of what is claimed to be Venezuelan territory continued to be made, Venezuela in 1887 suspended 

diplomatic relations with Great Britain, protesting “before Her Britannic Majesty’s Government, and 

to all civilized nations and before the world in general, against the acts of spoliation committed to 

her detriment by the Government of Great Britain, which she at no time and on no account will 

recognize as capable of altering in the least the rights which she has inherited from Spain and 

respecting which she will ever be willing to submit to the decision of a third power.” 

Why Venezuela Quit 

Diplomatic relations have not since been restored, though what is claimed to be new and 

flagrant British aggressions forced Venezuela to resume negotiations on the boundary question in 

1890, through its Minister in Paris and a special envoy on that subject, and in 1893, through a 

confidential agent, Señor Michelena. These negotiations, however, met with the fate of other like 

previous negotiations—Great Britain refusing to arbitrate except as to territory west of an arbitrary 

line drawn by herself. All attempts in that direction definitely terminated in October, 1893, when 

Señor Michelena filed with the Foreign Office the following declaration: “I perform a most strict 

duty in raising again in the name of the Government of Venezuela a most solemn protest against the 

proceedings of the Colony of British Guiana, constituting encroachments upon the territory of the 

Republic, and against the declaration contained in Your Excellency’s communication that Her 

100


Britannic Majesty’s Government considers that part of the territory as pertaining to British Guiana 

and admits no claim to it on the part of Venezuela. In support of this protest I reproduce all the 

arguments presented to Your Excellency in my note of 29 of last September and those which have 

been exhibited by the Government of Venezuela on the various occasions they have raised the same 

protest. 

Britain Held Responsible 

I lay on Her Britannic Majesty’s Government the entire responsibility of the incidents that may 

arise in the future from the necessity to which Venezuela has been driven to oppose by all possible 

means the dispossession of a part of her territory, for by disregarding her just representation to put 

an end to this violent state of affairs through the decision of arbiters, Her Majesty s Government 

ignores her rights, and imposes upon her the painful though peremptory duty of providing for her 

own legitimate defense.” 

To the territorial controversy between Great Britain and the Republic of Venezuela, thus briefly 

outlined, the United States has not been and, indeed, in view of its traditional policy, could not be 

indifferent. The note to the British Foreign Office by which Venezuela opened negotiations in 1876 

was at once communicated to this Government. In January, 1881, a letter of the Venezuelan 

Minister at Washington respecting certain alleged demonstrations at the mouth of the Orinoco was 

thus answered by Mr. Evarts, then Secretary of State: 

“In reply I have to inform you that in view of the deep interest which the Government of the United States 

takes in all transactions tending to attempted encroachments of foreign powers upon the territory of any of the 

Republics of this continent, this Government could not look with indifference to the forcible acquisition of territory 

by England if the mission of the vessels now at the month of the Orinoco should be found to be for that end. This 

Government awaits, therefore, with natural concern the more particular statements promised by the Government of 

Venezuela, which it hopes will not be long delayed.” 

In the February following, Mr. Evarts wrote again on the same subject as follows: 

“Referring to your note of the 21st of December last, touching the operations of certain British war vessels in 

and near the mouth of the Orinoco River and to my reply thereto of the 31st ultimo as well as to the recent 

occasions in which the subject has been mentioned in our conferences concerning the business of your mission, I 

take it to be fitting now at the close of my incumbency of the office I hold to advert to the interest with which the 

Government of the United States cannot fail to regard any such purpose with respect to the control of American 

territory as is stated to be contemplated by the Government of Great Britain and to express my regret that the 

further information promised in your note with regard to such designs had not reached me in season to receive the 

attention which, notwithstanding the severe pressure of public business at the end of an administrative term, I 

should have taken pleasure in bestowing upon it. I doubt not, however, that your representations in fulfillment of 

the awaited additional orders of your Government will have like earnest and solicitous consideration at the bands of 

my successor.” 

Arbitration Suggested 

In November, 1882, the then state of negotiations with Great Britain together with a copy of an 

intended note suggesting recourse to arbitration was communicated to the Secretary of State by the 

President of Venezuela with the expression of the hope that the United States would give him its 

opinion and advice and such support as it deemed possible to offer Venezuela in order that justice 

101

1 - 18 December 1895 

should be done her. Mr. Frelinghuysen replied in a dispatch to the United States Minister at Caracas 

as follows: 

This Government has already expressed its view that arbitration of such disputes is a convenient resort in the 

case of failure to come to a mutual understanding, and intimated its willingness, if Venezuela should so desire, to 

propose to Great Britain such a mode of settlement. It is felt that the tender of good offices would not be so 

profitable if the United States were to approach Great Britain as the advocate of prejudged solution in favor of 

Venezuela. So far as the United States can counsel and assist Venezuela it believes it best to confine its reply to the 

renewal of the suggestion of arbitration and the offer of all its good offices in that direction. This suggestion is the 

more easily made, since it appears, from the instruction sent by Señor Seijas to the Venezuelan Minister in London 

on the same 15th of July, 1882, that the President of Venezuela proposed to the British Government the 

submission of the dispute to arbitration by a third Power. 

You will take an early occasion to present the foregoing considerations to Señor Seijas, saying to him that, 

while trusting that the direct proposal for arbitration already made to Great Britain may bear good fruit (if, indeed, it 

has not already done so by its acceptance in principle), the Government of the United States will cheerfully lend any 

needful aid to press upon Great Britain in a friendly way the proposition so made, and at the same time you will say 

to Señor Seijas (in personal conference, and not with the formality of a written communication) that the United 

States, while advocating strongly the recourse of arbitration for the adjustment of international disputes affecting 

the states of America, does not seek to put itself forward as their arbiter; that, viewing all such questions impartially 

and with no intent or desire to prejudge their merits, the United States will not refuse its arbitration if asked by both 

parties, and that, regarding all such questions as essentially and distinctively American, the United States would 

always prefer to see such contentions adjusted through the arbitrament of an American rather than an European 

Power. 

Minister Guzman’s Plan 

General Guzman Blanco, the Venezuelan Minister to England in 1884, appointed with special 

reference to pending negotiations for a general treaty with Great Britain, visited Washington on his 

way to London and, after several conferences with the Secretary of State respecting the objects of 

his mission, was thus commended to the good offices of Mr. Lowell, our Minister at St. James’s: 

“It will be necessarily be somewhat within your discretion how far your good offices may be profitably 

employed with Her Majesty s Government to these ends, and at any rate you may take proper occasion to let Lord 

Granville know that we are not without concern as to whatever may affect the interests of a sister Republic of the 

American continent and its position in the family of nations. 

“If General Guzman should apply to you for advice or assistance in realizing the purposes of his mission you 

will show him proper consideration, and without committing the United States to any determinate political solution 

you will endeavor to carry out the views of this instruction.” 

Arbitration Offered 

The progress of Gen. Guzman’s negotiations did not fail to be observed d by this Government 

and in December, 1886, with a view to preventing the rupture of diplomatic relations—which 

actually took place in February following—the then Secretary of State, Mr. Bayard, instructed our 

Minister to Great Britain to tender the arbitration of the United States, in the following terms: 

“It does not appear that at any time heretofore the good offices of this Government have been actually 

tendered to avert a rupture between Great Britain and Venezuela. As intimated in my No. 58, our inaction in this 

regard would seem to be due to the reluctance of Venezuela to have the Government of the United States take any 

steps having relation to the action of the British Government which might, in appearance even, prejudice the resort 

102


to further arbitration or mediation which Venezuela desired. Nevertheless, the records abundantly testify our 

friendly concern in the adjustment of the dispute; and the intelligence now received warrants me in tendering 

through you to Her Majesty’s Government the good offices of the United States to promote an amicable settlement 

of the respective claims of Great Britain and Venezuela in the premises. 

“As proof of the impartiality with which we view the question, we offer our arbitration, if acceptable to both 

countries. We do this with the less hesitancy as the dispute turns upon simple and readily ascertainable historical 

facts. 

“Her Majesty’s Government will readily understand that this attitude of friendly neutrality and entire 

impartiality touching the merits of the controversy, consisting wholly in a difference of facts between our friends 

and neighbors, is entirely consistent and compatible with the sense of responsibility that rests upon the United 

States in relation to the South American republics. 

“The doctrines we announced two generations ago, at the instance and with the moral support and approval of 

the British Government, have lost none of their force or importance in the progress of time and the Governments 

of Great Britain and the United States are equally in conserving a status, the wisdom of which has been 

demonstrated by the experience of more than half a century. 

“It is proper, therefore, that you should convey to Lord Iddesleigh, in such sufficiently guarded terms as your 

discretion may dictate, the satisfaction that would be felt by the Government of the United States in perceiving that 

its wishes in this regard were permitted to have influence with Her Majesty s Government.” 

Great Britain Declined 

This offer of mediation was declined by Great Britain, with the statement that a similar offer had 

already been received from another quarter, and that the Queen’s Government were still not without 

hope of a settlement by direct diplomatic negotiations. 

In February, 1888, having been informed that the Governor of British Guiana had by formal 

decree laid claim to the territory traversed by the route of a proposed railway from Ciudad Bolivar to 

Guacipati, Mr. Bayard addressed a note to our Minister to England, from which the following 

extracts are taken: 

The claim now stated to have been put forth by the authorities of British Guiana necessarily gives rise to grave 

disquietude, and creates an apprehension that the territorial claim does not follow historical traditions or evidence, 

but is apparently indefinite. At no time hitherto does it appear that the district, of which Guacipati is the center, has 

been claimed as British territory or that such jurisdiction has ever been asserted over its inhabitants, and if the 

reported decree of the Governor of British Guiana be indeed genuine it is not apparent how any line of railway 

from Ciudad Bolivar to Guacipati could enter or traverse territory within the control of Great Britain. 

It is true that the line claimed by Great Britain as the western boundary of British Guiana is uncertain and 

vague. It is only necessary to examine the British Colonial Office List for a few years back to perceive this. In the 

issue for 1877, for instance, the line runs nearly southwardly from the mouth of the Amacuro to the junction of the 

Cotinga and Takutu rivers. In the issue of 1887, ten years later, it makes a wide detour to the westward, following 

the Yuruari. Guacipati lies considerably westward of the line officially claimed in 1887, and it may perhaps be 

instructive to compare with it the map which doubtless will be found in the Colonial Office List for the present 

year. 

It may be well for you to express anew to Lord Salisbury the great gratification it would afford this 

Government to see the Venezuelan dispute amicably and honorably settled by arbitration or otherwise and our 

readiness to do anything we properly can to assist to that end. 

In the course of your conversation you may refer to the publication in The London Financier of Jan. 24 (a copy of 

which you can procure and exhibit to Lord Salisbury) and express apprehension lest the widening pretensions of 

British Guiana to possess territory over which Venezuela’s jurisdiction has never heretofore been disputed may not 

diminish the chances for a practical settlement. 

If, indeed, it should appear that there is no fixed limit to the British boundary claim, our good disposition to aid 

in a settlement might not only be defeated, but be obliged to give place to a feeling of grave concern. 

103

1 - 18 December 1895 

Blaine’s Stand Reviewed 

Information having been received in 1889 that Barima, at the mouth of the Orinoco, had been 

declared a British port, Mr. Blaine, then Secretary of State, authorized Mr. White to confer with 

Lord Salisbury for the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between Great Britain and Venezuela 

on the basis of a temporary restoration of the status quo, and May 1 and May 6, 1890, sent the 

following telegrams to our Minister to England, Mr. Lincoln: 

Mr. Lincoln is instructed to use his good offices with Lord Salisbury to bring about the resumption of 

diplomatic intercourse between Great Britain and Venezuela as a preliminary step towards the settlement of the 

boundary dispute by arbitration. The joint proposals of Great Britain and the United States towards Portugal which 

have just been brought about would seem to make the present time propitious for submitting this question to an 

international arbitration. He is requested to propose to Lord Salisbury, with a view to an accommodation, that an 

informal conference be had in Washington or in London of representatives of the three powers. In such conference 

the position of the United States is one solely of impartial toward both litigants. It is, nevertheless, desired that you 

shall do all you can consistently with our attitude of impartial friendship to induce some accord between the 

contestants by which the merits of the controversy may be fairly ascertained and the rights of each party justly 

confirmed. The neutral position of this Government does not comport with any expression of opinion on the part 

of this Department an to what these rights are, but it is confident that the shifting footing on which the British 

boundary question has rested for several years past is an obstacle to such a correct appreciation of the nature and 

grounds of her claim as would alone warrant the formation of any opinion. 

In the course of the same year, 1890, Venezuela sent to London a special envoy to bring about 

the resumption of diplomatic relations with Great Britain through the good offices of the United 

States Minister. But the mission failed because a condition of such resumption, steadily adhered to 

by Venezuela, was the reference of the boundary dispute to arbitration. Since the close of the 

negotiations initiated by Señor Michelena in 1893, Venezuela has repeatedly brought the controversy 

to the notice of the United States, has insisted upon its importance to the United States as well as to 

Venezuela, has represented it to have reached an acute stage—making definite action by the United 

States imperative—and has not ceased to solicit the services and support of the United States in aid 

of its final adjustment. These appeals have not been received with indifference and our Ambassador 

to Great Britain has been uniformly instructed to exert all his influence in the direction of the reestablishment 

of diplomatic relations between Great Britain and Venezuela and in favor of 

arbitration of the boundary controversy. The Secretary of State in a communication to Mr. Bayard, 

bearing the date July 13, 1894, used the following language: 

A Peaceful Settlement Desired 

“The President is inspired by a desire for a peaceable and honorable settlement of existing difficulties between 

an American state and a powerful transatlantic nation, and would be glad to see the re-establishment of such 

diplomatic relations between them as would promote that end. 

“I can discern but two equitable solutions of the present controversy. One is the determination of the rights of 

the disputants as the respective successors to the historical rights of Holland and Spain over the region in question. 

The other is to create a new boundary line in accordance with the dictates of mutual expediency and consideration. 

The two Governments having so far been unable to agree on a conventional line, the consistent and conspicuous 

advocacy by the United States and England of the principle of arbitration and their recourse thereto in settlement 

important questions arising between them, makes such a mode of adjustment equally appropriate in the present 

instance, and this Government will gladly do what it can to further a determination in that sense.” 

104


The President’s Views 

Subsequent communications to Mr. Bayard direct him to ascertain whether a Minister from 

Venezuela would be received by Great Britain. In the annual Message to Congress of December 3rd 

last, the President used the following language: 

“The boundary of British Guiana still remains in dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela. Believing that 

its early settlement on some just basis alike honorable to both parties is in the line of our established policy to 

remove from this hemisphere all causes of difference with powers beyond the sea, I shall renew the efforts 

heretofore made to bring about a restoration of diplomatic relations between the disputants and to induce a 

reference to arbitration—a resort which Great Britain so conspicuously favors in principle and respects in practice 

and which is earnestly sought by her weaker adversary.” 

And February 22, 1895, a joint resolution of Congress declared: “that the President’s suggestion . 

. . that Great Britain and Venezuela refer their dispute as to boundaries to friendly arbitration be 

earnestly recommended to the favorable consideration of both parties in interest.” 

The important features of the existing situation, as shown by the foregoing recital, may be briefly 

stated. 

1. The title to territory of indefinite but confessedly very large extent is in dispute between Great 

Britain on the one hand and the South American Republic of Venezuela on the other. 

2. The disparity in the strength of the claimants is such that Venezuela can hope to establish her 

claim only through peaceful methods—through an agreement with her adversary either upon the 

subject itself or upon an arbitration. 

3. The controversy, with varying claims on the part of Great Britain has existed for more than 

half a century, during which period many earnest and persistent efforts of Venezuela to establish a 

boundary by agreement have proved unsuccessful. 

4. The futility of the endeavor to obtain a conventional line being recognized, Venezuela for a 

quarter of a century has asked and striven for arbitration. 

5. Great Britain, however, has always and continuously refused to arbitrate, except upon the 

condition of a renunciation of a large part of the Venezuelan claim and of a concession to herself of 

a large share of the territory in controversy. 

6. By the frequent interposition of its good offices at the instance of Venezuela, by constantly 

urging and promoting the restoration of diplomatic relations between the two countries, by pressing 

for arbitration of the disputed boundary, by offering to act as arbitrator, by expressing its grave 

concern whenever new alleged instances of British aggression upon Venezuelan territory have been 

brought to its notice, the Government of the United States has made it clear to Great Britain and to 

the world that the controversy is one in which both its honor and its interests are involved and the 

continuance of which it can not regard with indifference. 

This Country’s Position 

The accuracy of the foregoing analysis of the existing status cannot, it is believed, be challenged. 

It shows that status to be such that those charged with the interests of the United States are now 

forced to determine exactly what those interests are and what course of action they require. It 

compels them to decide to what extent, if any, the United States may and should intervene in a 

controversy between and primarily concerning only Great Britain and Venezuela and to decide how 

105

1 - 18 December 1895 

far it is bound to see that the integrity of Venezuelan territory is not impaired by the pretensions of 

its powerful antagonist. Are any such right and duty devolved upon the United States? If not, the 

United States has already done all, if not more than all, that a purely sentimental interest in the 

affairs of the two countries justifies, and to push its interposition further would be unbecoming and 

undignified and might well subject it to the charge of impertinent intermeddling with affairs with 

which it has no rightful concern. 

On the other hand, if any such right and duty exist, their due exercise and discharge will not 

permit of any action that shall not be efficient and that, if the power of the United States is adequate, 

shall not result in the accomplishment of the end in view. The question thus presented, as matter of 

principle and regard being had to the settled national policy, does not seem difficult of solution. Yet 

the momentous practical consequences dependent upon its determination require that it should be 

carefully considered and that the grounds of the conclusion arrived at should be fully and frankly 

stated. 

That there are circumstances under which a nation may justly interpose in a controversy to 

which two or more other nations are the direct parties and immediate parties is an admitted canon 

of international law. The doctrine is ordinarily expressed in terms of the most general character and 

is perhaps incapable of more specific statement. It is declared in substance that a nation may avail 

itself of this right whenever what is done or proposed by any of the parties primarily concerned is a 

serious and direct menace to its own integrity, tranquillity, or welfare. The propriety of the rule when 

applied in good faith will not be questioned in any quarter. On the other hand, it is an inevitable 

though unfortunate consequence of the wide scope of the rule that it has only too often been made 

a cloak for schemes of wanton spoliation and aggrandizement. We are concerned at this time, 

however, not so much with the general rule as with a form of it which is peculiarly and distinctively 

America. Washington, in the solemn admonition of the Farewell Address, explicitly warned his 

countrymen against entanglements with the politics or the controversies of European powers. 

“Europe,” he said, “has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. 

Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to 

our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the 

ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or 

enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course.” 

The Monroe Doctrine 

During the administration of President Monroe this doctrine of the farewell address was first 

considered in all its aspects and with a view to all its practical consequences. The farewell address, 

while it took America out of the field of European politics, was silent as to the part Europe might be 

permitted to play in America. Doubtless it was thought the latest addition to the family of nations 

should not make haste to prescribe rules for the guidance of its older members, and the expediency 

and propriety of serving the powers of Europe with notice of a complete and distinctive American 

policy excluding them from interference with American political affairs might well seem dubious to 

a generation to whom the French alliance, with its manifold advantages to the cause of American 

independence, was fresh in mind. Twenty years later, however, the situation had changed. The lately 

born nation had greatly increased in power and resources, had demonstrated its strength on land and 

sea and as well in the conflicts of arms as in the pursuits of peace, and had begun to realize the 

commanding position on this continent which the character of its people, their free institutions, and 

106


their remoteness from the chief scene of European contentions combined to give to it. The Monroe 

administration therefore did not hesitate to accept and apply the logic of the Farewell Address by 

declaring in effect that American non-intervention in European affairs necessarily implied and meant 

European non-intervention in American affairs. 

What Monroe Believed 

Conceiving unquestionably that complete European non-interference in American concerns 

would be cheaply purchased by complete American non-interference in European concerns, 

President Monroe, in the celebrated Message of December 2, 1823, used the following language: 

In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it 

comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries 

or make preparations for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere, we are of necessity, more 

immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The 

political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference 

proceeds from that which exists in their respective governments. And to the defense of our own which has been 

achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, 

and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor 

and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should 

consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our 

peace and safety. 

With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power, we have not interfered and shall not 

interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose 

independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any 

interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European 

power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States. . . 

Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated 

that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of 

its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations 

with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting, in all instances, the just claims of 

every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to these continents, circumstances are eminently and 

conspicuously different. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of 

either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, 

if left to themselves would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold 

such interposition, in any form, with indifference. 

The Monroe administration, however, did not content itself with formulating a correct rule for 

the regulation of the relations between Europe and America. It aimed at also securing the practical 

benefits to result from the application of the rule. Hence the message just quoted declared that the 

American continents were fully occupied and were not the subjects for future colonization by 

European powers. 

To this spirit and this purpose, also, are to be attributed the passages of the same message which 

treat any infringement of the rule against interference in American affairs on the part of the powers 

of Europe as an act of unfriendliness to the United States. It was realized that it was futile to lay 

down such a rule unless its observance could be enforced. It was manifest that the United States was 

the only power inn this hemisphere capable of enforcing it. It was therefore courageously declared 

not merely that Europe ought not to interfere in American affairs, but that any European power 

doing so would be regarded as antagonizing the interests and inviting the opposition of the United 

107

1 - 18 December 1895 

States. 

America Not Open to Colonization 

That America is in no part open to colonization, though the proposition was not universally 

admitted at the time of its first enunciation has long been universally conceded. We are now 

concerned, therefore, only with that other practical application of the Monroe doctrine, the 

disregard of which by an European power is to be deemed an act of unfriendliness towards the 

United States. 

What the United States Demands 

The precise scope and limitations of this rule cannot be too clearly apprehended. It does not 

establish any general protectorate by the United American states over other American states. It does 

not relieve any American state from its obligations as fixed by international law nor prevent any 

European Power directly interested from enforcing such obligations or from inflicting merited 

punishment for the breach of them. It does not contemplate any interference in the internal affairs 

of any American state or in the relations between it and other American states. It does not justify 

any attempt on our part to change the established form of government of any American state or to 

prevent the people of such state from altering that form according to their own will and pleasure. 

The rule in question has but a single purpose and object. It is that no European power or 

combination of European powers shall forcibly deprive an American state of the right and power of 

self-government and of shaping for itself its own political fortunes and destinies. 

That the rule thus defined has been the accepted public law of this country ever since its 

promulgation cannot fairly be denied. Its pronouncement by the Monroe administration at that 

particular time was unquestionably due to the inspiration of Great Britain, who at once gave to it an 

open and unqualified adhesion which has never been withdrawn. But the rule was decided upon and 

formulated by the administration as a distinctively American doctrine of great import to the safety 

and welfare of the United States after the most careful consideration by a Cabinet which numbered 

among its members John Quincy Adams, Calhoun, Crawford, and Wirt, and which before acting 

took both Jefferson and Madison into its counsels. Its promulgation was received with acclaim by 

the entire people of the country irrespective of party. Three years after, Webster declared that the 

doctrine involved the honor of the country. “I look upon it,” he said, “as part of its treasures of 

reputation, and for one I intend to guard it,” and he added, “I look on the message of December, 

1823, as forming a bright page in our history. I will help neither to erase it nor to tear it out; nor 

shall it be by any act of mine blurred or blotted. It did honor to the sagacity of the Government, and 

I will not diminish that honor.” 

The Action on Congress 

Though the rule thus highly eulogized by Webster has never been formally affirmed by 

Congress, the House in 1864 declared against the Mexican monarchy sought to be set up by the 

French as not in accord with the policy of the United States, and in 1889 the Senate expressed its 

disapproval of the connection of any European power with a canal across the Isthmus of Darien or 

Central America. It is manifest that, if a rule has been openly and uniformly declared and acted upon 

108


by the executive branch of the Government for more than seventy years without express 

repudiation by Congress, it must be conclusively presumed to have its sanction. Yet it is certainly no 

more than the exact truth to say that every administration since President Monroe’s has had 

occasion, and sometimes more occasions than one, to examine and consider the Monroe doctrine 

and has in each instance given it emphatic endorsement. Presidents have dwelt upon it in messages 

to Congress and Secretaries of State have time after time made it the theme of diplomatic 

representation. 

Nor, if the practical results of the rule be sought for, is the record either meager or obscure. Its 

first and immediate effect was indeed most momentous and far reaching. It was the controlling 

factor in the emancipation of South America and to it the independent states which now divide that 

region between them are largely indebted for their very existence. Since then the most striking single 

achievement to be credited to the rule is the evacuation of Mexico by the French upon the 

termination of the civil war. But we are also indebted to it for the provisions of the Clayton-Bulwer 

treaty, which both neutralized any interoceanic canal across Central America and expressly excluded 

Great Britain from occupying or exercising any dominion over any part of Central America. It has 

been used in the case of Cuba as if justifying the position that, while the sovereignty of Spain will be 

respected, the island will not be permitted to become the possession of any other European power. 

It has been influential in bringing about the definite relinquishment of any supposed protectorate by 

Great Britain over the Mosquito Coast. President Polk, in the case of Yucatan and the proposed 

voluntary transfer of that country to Great Britain or Spain, relied upon the Monroe doctrine, 

though perhaps erroneously, when he declared in a special message to Congress on the subject that 

the United States could not consent to any such transfer. Yet, in somewhat the same spirit, Secretary 

Fish affirmed in 1870 that President Grant had but followed “the teachings of all our history” in 

declaring in his annual message of that year that existing dependencies were no longer regarded as 

subject to transfer from one European power to another, and that when the present relation of 

colonies ceases they are to become independent powers. Another development of the rule, though 

apparently not required by either its letter or its spirit, is found in the objection to arbitration of 

South American controversies by an European Power. American questions, it is said, are for 

American decision, and on that ground the United States went so far as to refuse to mediate in the 

war between Chile and Peru jointly with Great Britain and France. Finally, on the ground, among 

others, that the authority of the Monroe doctrine and the prestige of the United States as its 

exponent and sponsor would be seriously impaired, Secretary Bayard strenuously resisted the 

enforcement of the Pelletier claim against Haiti. 

The Haitian Case 

“The United States,” [he said,] “has proclaimed herself the protector of this western world, in which she is by 

far the stronger power, and from the intrusion of European sovereignties. She can point with proud satisfaction to 

the fact that over and over again has she declared effectively, that serious indeed would be the consequences if 

European hostile foot should, without just cause, tread those states in the New World which have emancipated 

themselves from European control. She has announced that she would cherish, as it becomes her, the territorial 

rights of the feeblest of those states; regarding them not merely as the eye of the law equal to even the greatest of 

nationalities, but in view of her distinctive policy as entitled to be regarded by her as the objects of a peculiarly 

gracious care. I feel bound to say that if we should sanction by reprisals in Haiti the ruthless invasion of her territory 

and insult to her sovereignty which the facts now before us disclose, if we approve by solemn Executive action and 

Congressional assent that invasion, it will be difficult for us hereafter to assert that in the New World, of whose 

rights we are the peculiar guardians, these rights have never been invaded by ourselves.” 

109

1 - 18 December 1895 

The foregoing enumeration not only shows the main instances wherein the rule in question has 

been affirmed and applied, but also demonstrates that the Venezuelan boundary controversy is in 

any view far within the scope and spirit of the rule as uniformly accepted and acted upon. A doctrine 

of American public law thus long and firmly established and supported could not easily be ignored 

in a proper case for its application, even were the considerations upon which it is founded obscure 

or questionable. No such objection can be made, however, to the Monroe doctrine understood and 

defined in the manner already stated. It rests, on the contrary, upon facts and principles that are 

both intelligible and incontrovertible. 

That distance and three thousand miles of intervening ocean make any permanent political 

union between an European and an American state unnatural an inexpedient will hardly be denied. 

But physical and geographical considerations are the least of the objections to such a union. Europe, 

as Washington observed, has a sot of primary interests which are peculiar to herself. America is not 

interested in them and ought not to be vexed or complicated with them. Each great European 

power, for instance, today maintains enormous armies and fleets in self-defense and for protection 

against any other European power or powers. What have the states of America to do with that 

condition of things, or why should they be impoverished by wars or preparations for wars with 

whose causes or results they can have no direct concern? 

If all Europe were to suddenly fly to arms over the fate of Turkey, would it not be preposterous 

that any American state should find itself inextricably involved in the miseries and burdens of the 

contest? If it were, it would prove to be a partnership in the cost and losses of the struggle but not in 

any ensuing benefits. What is true of the material is no less true of what may be termed the moral 

interests involved. Those pertaining to Europe are peculiar to her and are entirely diverse from those 

pertaining and peculiar to America. 

Nothing in Harmony 

Europe as a whole is monarchical, and, with the single exception of the Republic of France, is 

committed to the monarchial principle. America, on the other hand, is devoted to the exactly 

opposite principle—to the idea that every people has an inalienable right to self-government—and, 

in the United States of America, has furnished to the world the most conspicuous and conclusive 

example of proof of the excellence of free institutions, whether from the standpoint of national 

greatness or of individual happiness. It can not be necessary, however, to enlarge upon this phase of 

the subject whether moral or material interests be considered, it can not but be universally conceded 

that those of Europe are irreconcilably diverse from those of America, and that any European 

control of the latter is necessarily both incongruous and injurious. 

If, however, for the reasons stated the forcible intrusion of European Powers into American 

politics is to be deprecated—if, as it is to be deprecated, it should be resisted and prevented—such 

resistance and prevention must come from the United States. They would come from it, of course, 

were it made the point of attack. But, if they come at all, they must also come from it when any 

other American state is attacked, since only the United States has the strength adequate to the 

exigency. 

Is it true, then, that the safety and welfare of the United States are so concerned with the 

maintenance of the independence of every American state as against any European power as to 

justify and require the interposition of the United States whenever that independence is endangered? 

The question can be candidly answered in but one way. The states of America, South as well as 

110


North, by geographical proximity, by natural sympathy, by similarity of governmental constitutions, 

are friends and allies, commercially and politically, of the United States. To allow the subjugation of 

any of them by an European Power is, of course, to completely reverse that situation and signifies 

the loss of all the advantages incident to their natural relations to us. But that is not all. The people 

of the United States have a vital interest in the cause of popular self-government. They have secured 

the right for themselves and their posterity at the cost of infinite blood and treasure. They have 

realized and exemplified its beneficent operation by a career unexampled in point of national 

greatness or individual felicity. They believe it to be for the healing of all nations, and that 

civilization must either advance or retrograde accordingly as its supremacy is extended or curtailed. 

The Position of Americans 

Imbued with these sentiments, the people of the United States might not impossibly be wrought 

up to an active propaganda in favor of a cause so highly valued both for themselves and for 

mankind. But the age of the Crusades has passed, and they are content with such assertion and 

defense of the right of popular self-government as their own security and welfare demand. It is in 

that view more than any other that they believe it not to be tolerated that the political control of an 

American state shall be forcibly assumed by an European power. The mischiefs apprehended from 

such a source are none the less real because not immediately imminent in any specific case, and are 

none the less to be guarded against because the combination of circumstances that will bring them 

upon us cannot be predicted. The civilized states of Christendom deal with each other on 

substantially the same principles that regulate the conduct of individuals. The greater its 

enlightenment, the more surely every state perceives that its permanent interests require it to be 

governed by the immutable principles of right and justice. Each, nevertheless, is only too liable to 

succumb to the temptations offered by seeming special opportunities for its own aggrandizement, 

and each would rashly imperil its own safety were it not to remember that for the regard and respect 

of other states it must be largely dependent upon its own strength and power. 

Today the United States is practically sovereign on this continent, and its fiat is law upon the 

subjects to which it confines its interposition. Why? It is not because of the pure friendship or good 

will felt for it. It is not simply by reason of its high character as a civilized state, nor because wisdom 

and justice and equity are the invariable characteristics of the dealings of the United States. 

It is because, in addition to all other grounds, its infinite resources combined with its isolated 

position render it master of the situation and practically invulnerable as against any or all other 

powers. All the advantages of this superiority are at once imperiled if the principle be admitted that 

European powers may convert American states into colonies or provinces of their own. The 

principle would be eagerly availed of, and every power doing so would immediately acquire a base of 

military operations against us. What one power was permitted to do could not be denied to another, 

and it is not inconceivable that the struggle now going on for the acquisition of Africa might be 

transferred to South America. If it were, the weaker countries would unquestionably be soon 

absorbed, while the ultimate result might be the partition of all South America between the various 

European powers. 

The disastrous consequences to the United States of such a condition of things are obvious. The 

loss of prestige, of authority and of weight in the councils of the family of nations, would be among 

the least of them. Our only real rivals in peace as well as enemies in war would be found located at 

our very doors. Thus far in our history, we have been spared the burdens and evils of immense 

111

1 - 18 December 1895 

standing armies and all the other accessories of huge warlike establishments, and the exemption has 

largely contributed to our national greatness and wealth as well as to the happiness of every citizen. 

What Would Be Meant 

But, with the Powers of Europe permanently encamped on American soil, the ideal conditions 

we have thus far enjoyed can not be expected to continue. We too must be armed to the teeth, we 

too must convert the flower of our male population into soldiers and sailors, and by withdrawing 

them from the various pursuits of peaceful industry we too must practically annihilate a large share 

of the productive energy of the nation. How a greater calamity than this could overtake us it is 

difficult to see. Nor are our just apprehensions to be allayed by suggestions of the friendliness of 

European powers—of their good will towards us—of their disposition, should they be our 

neighbors, to dwell with us in peace and harmony. The people of the United States have learned in 

the school of experience to what extent the relations of states to each other depend not upon 

sentiment nor principle, but upon selfish interest. They will not soon forget that, in their hour of 

distress, all their anxieties and burdens were aggravated by the possibility of demonstrations against 

their natural life on the part of powers with whom they had long maintained the most harmonious 

relations. They have yet in mind that France seized upon the apparent opportunity of our civil war 

to set up a monarchy in the adjoining state of Mexico. They realize that had France and Great 

Britain held important South American possessions to work from and to benefit, the temptation to 

destroy the predominance of the Great Republic in this hemisphere by furthering its 

dismemberment might have been irresistible. From that grave peril they have been saved in the past 

and may be saved again in the future through the operation of the sure but silent force of the 

doctrine proclaimed by President Monroe. To abandon it, on the other hand, disregarding both the 

logic of the situation and the facts of our past experience, would be to renounce a policy which has 

proved, both an easy defense against foreign aggression and a prolific source of internal progress 

and prosperity. 

There is, then, a doctrine of American public law, well founded in principle and abundantly 

sanctioned by precedent, which entitles and requires the United States to treat as an injury to itself 

the forcible assumption of an European power of political control over an American state. The 

application of the doctrine to the boundary dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela remains to 

be made and presents no real difficulty. Though the dispute relates to a boundary line, yet, as it is 

between states, it necessarily imports political control to be lost by one party and gained by the 

other. The political control at stake, too, is of no mean importance, but concerns a domain of great 

extent—the British claim, it will be remembered, apparently expanded in two years some 33,000 

square miles—and, if it also directly involves the command of the mouth of the Orinoco, is of 

immense consequence in connection with the whole river navigation of the interior of South 

America. 

Great Britain False Claim 

It has been intimated, indeed, that in respect of these South American possessions Great Britain 

is herself an American state like any other, so that a controversy between her and Venezuela is to be 

settled between themselves as if it were between Venezuela and Brazil or between Venezuela and 

Colombia, and does not call for or justify United States intervention. If this view be tenable at all, 

112


the logical sequence is plain. Great Britain as a South American state is to be entirely differentiated 

from Great Britain generally, and if the boundary question cannot be settled otherwise than by force, 

British Guiana, with her own independent resources and not those of the British Empire, should be 

left to settle the matter with Venezuela—an arrangement which very possibly Venezuela might not 

object to. But the proposition that an European power with an American dependency is for the 

purposes of the Monroe doctrine to be classed not as an European but as an American state will not 

admit of serious discussion. If it were to be adopted, the Monroe doctrine would be too valueless to 

be worth asserting. Not only would every European Power now having a South American colony be 

enabled to extend its possessions on this continent indefinitely, but any other European power 

might also do the same by first taking pains to procure a fraction of South American soil by 

voluntary cession. 

The declaration of the Monroe message, that existing colonies or dependencies of an European 

power would not be interfered with by the United States, means colonies or dependencies then 

existing, with their limits as then existing. So it has been invariably construed, and so it must 

continue to be construed unless it is to be deprived of all vital force. Great Britain cannot be deemed 

a South American state within the purview of the Monroe doctrine, nor, if she is appropriating 

Venezuelan territory, is it material that she does so by advancing the frontier of an old colony 

instead of by the planting of a new colony. The difference is matter of form and not of substance 

and the doctrine if pertinent in the one case must be in the other also. It is not admitted, however, 

and therefore cannot be assumed, that Great Britain is in fact usurping dominion over Venezuelan 

territory. While Venezuela charges such usurpation, Great Britain denies it, and the United States, 

until the merits are authoritatively ascertained, can take sides with neither. But while this is so— 

while the United States may not, under existing circumstances at least, take upon itself to say which 

of the two parties is right and which wrong—it is certainly within its right to demand that the truth 

shall be ascertained. Being entitled to resent and resist any sequestration of Venezuelan soil by Great 

Britain, it is necessarily entitled to know whether such sequestration has occurred or is now going 

on. Otherwise, if the United States is without the right to know and have it determined whether 

there is or is not British aggression upon Venezuelan territory, its right to protest and repel such 

aggression may be dismissed from consideration. 

The United States and the Boundary 

The right to act upon a fact the existence of which there is no right to have ascertained is simply 

illusory. It being clear, therefore, that the United States may legitimately insist upon the merits of the 

boundary question being determined, it is equally clear that there is but one feasible mode of 

determining them, viz., peaceful arbitration. The impracticability of any conventional adjustment has 

been often and thoroughly demonstrated. Even more impossible of consideration is an appeal to 

arms—a mode of settling national pretensions unhappily not yet wholly obsolete. 

If, however, it were not condemnable as a relic barbarism and a crime in itself, so one-sided a 

contest could not be invited nor even accepted by Great Britain without distinct disparagement to 

her character as a civilized state. Great Britain, however, assumes no such attitude. On the contrary, 

she both admits there is a controversy and that arbitration should be resorted to for its adjustment. 

But, while up to that point her attitude leaves nothing to be desired, its practical effect is completely 

nullified by her insistence that the submission shall cover but a part of the controversy—that as a 

condition of arbitrating her right to a part of the disputed territory, the remainder shall be turned 

113

1 - 18 December 1895 

over to her. If it were possible to point to a boundary which both parties had ever agreed or 

assumed to be such either expressly or tacitly, the demand that territory conceded by such line to 

British Guiana should be held not to be in dispute might rest upon a reasonable basis. But there is 

no such line. 

The territory which Great Britain insists shall be ceded to her as a condition of arbitrating her 

claim to other territory has never been admitted to belong to her. It has always and consistently been 

claimed by Venezuela. Upon what principle—except her feebleness as a nation—is she to be denied 

the right of having the claim heard and passed upon by an impartial tribunal? No reason nor shadow 

of reason appears in all the voluminous literature of the subject. 

“It is to be so because I will it to be so” seems to be the only justification Great Britain offers. It 

is, indeed, intimated that the British claim to this particular territory rests upon an occupation, which 

whether acquiesced in or not, has ripened into a perfect title by long continuance. But what 

prescription affecting territorial rights can be said to exist as between sovereign states? Or, if there is 

any, what is the legitimate consequence? If it is not that all arbitration should be denied, but only 

that the submission should embrace an additional topic, namely, the validity of the asserted 

prescriptive title either in point of law or in point of fact. 

Great Britain Is Inconsistent 

No different result follows from the contention that as matter of principle Great Britain cannot 

be asked to submit and ought not to submit to arbitration her political and sovereign rights over 

territory. This contention, if applied to the whole or to a vital part of the possessions of a sovereign 

state, need not be controverted. To hold otherwise might be equivalent to holding that a sovereign 

state was bound to arbitrate its very existence. But Great Britain has herself shown in various 

instances that the principle has no pertinency when either the interests or the territorial area 

involved are not of controlling magnitude and her loss of them as the result of arbitration cannot 

appreciably affect her honor or her power. Thus, she has arbitrated the extent of her colonial 

possessions twice with the United States, twice with Portugal, and once with Germany, and perhaps 

in other instances. The Northwest Water Boundary Arbitration of 1872 between her and this 

country is an example in point and well illustrates both the effect to be given to long-continued use 

and enjoyment and the fact that a truly great Power sacrifices neither prestige nor dignity by 

reconsidering the most emphatic rejection of a proposition when satisfied of the obvious and 

intrinsic justice of the case. By the award of the Emperor of Germany, the arbitrator in that case, the 

United States acquired San Juan and a number of smaller islands near the coast of Vancouver as a 

consequence of the decision that the term “the channel which separates the continent from 

Vancouver’s Island”, as used in the treaty of Washington of 1846, meant the Haro channel and not 

the Rosario channel. Yet a leading contention of Great Britain before the arbitrator was that equity 

required a judgment in her favor because a decision in favor of the United States would deprive 

British subjects of rights of navigation of which they had the habitual enjoyment from the time 

when the Rosario Strait was first explored and surveyed in 1798. So, though in virtue of the award 

the United States acquired San Juan and the other islands of the group to which it belongs, the 

British Foreign Secretary had in 1859 instructed the British Minister at Washington as follows: 

Her Majesty’s Government must, therefore, under any circumstances, maintain the right of the British Crown 

to the Island of San Juan. The interests at stake in connection with the retention of that Island are too important to 

114


admit of compromise and your Lordship will consequently bear in mind that, whatever arrangement as to the 

boundary line is finally arrived at, no settlement of the question will be accepted by Her Majesty’s Government 

which does not provide for the Island of San Juan being reserved to the British Crown. 

Thus as already intimated, the British demand that her right to a portion of the disputed territory 

shall be acknowledged before she will consent to an arbitration as to the rest seems to stand upon 

nothing but her own ipse dixit [pronouncement]. She says to Venezuela, in substance: “You can get 

none of the debatable land by force, because you are not strong enough; you can get none by treaty, 

because I will not agree; and you can take your chance of getting a portion by arbitration only if you 

first agree to abandon to me such other portion as I may designate.” 

It is not perceived how such an attitude can be defended nor how it is reconcilable with that 

love of justice and fair play so eminently characteristic of the English race. It in effect deprives 

Venezuela of her free agency and puts her under virtual duress. Territory acquired by reason of it 

will be as much wrested from her by the strong hand as if occupied by British troops or covered by 

British fleets. It seems therefore quite impossible that this position of Great Britain should be 

assented to by the United States, or that, if such position be adhered to with the result of enlarging 

the bounds of British Guiana, it should not be regarded as amounting, in substance, to an invasion 

and conquest of Venezuelan territory. 

The President’s Duty 

In these circumstances, the duty of the President appears to him unmistakable and imperative. 

Great Britain's assertion of title to the disputed territory combined with her refusal to have that title 

investigated being a substantial appropriation of the territory to her own use, not to protest and give 

warning that the transaction will be regarded as injurious to the interests of the people of the United 

States as well as oppressive in itself would be to ignore an established policy with which the honor 

and welfare of this country are closely identified. While the measures necessary or proper for the 

vindication of that policy are to be determined by another branch of the Government, it is clearly 

for the Executive to leave nothing undone which may tend to render such determination 

unnecessary. 

You are instructed, therefore, to present the foregoing views to Lord Salisbury by reading to him 

this communication (leaving with him a copy should he so desire), and to reinforce them by such 

pertinent considerations as will doubtless occur to you. They call for a definite decision upon the 

point whether Great Britain will consent or will decline to submit the Venezuelan boundary question 

in its entirety to impartial arbitration. It is the earnest hope of the President that the conclusion will 

be on the side of arbitration, and that Great Britain will add one more to the conspicuous 

precedents she has already furnished in favor of that wise and just mode of adjusting international 

disputes. 

If he is to be disappointed in that hope, however—a result not to be anticipated and in his 

judgment calculated to greatly embarrass the future relations between this country and Great 

Britain—it is his wish to be made acquainted with the fact at such early date as will enable him to lay 

the whole subject before Congress in his next annual message. 


115

1 - 18 December 1895 

- 86 - 

ENGLAND’S DIFFERENT CLAIMS TO VENEZUELAN TERRITORY 

The controversy between Great Britain and Venezuela over territory is one of long standing. 

Claims made by England have steadily increased and have always been resisted by the Venezuelans. 

The territory in dispute is extremely valuable and fear of losing it is thought to be the reason for 

England’s declining arbitration. 

Great Britain acquired her title to the colony of British Guiana by treaty from Holland in 1814, 

the provinces transferred being those of Esequibo, Demerara, and Berbice. From that time to the 

present day Venezuela has never recognized that England enjoys legal right to a single foot of 

ground west of the Esequibo River. 

In 1841 Sir Robert Schomburgk, an engineer in the British service, entered the disputed territory 

without the concurrence of the British Government, and proceeded to run a line from the Brazilian 

frontier to the Boca Grande, which was intended to establish a definite boundary between British 

Guiana and Venezuela. The Schomburgk line was not at first claimed by the British Foreign Office 

as legal, and has not until recently been designated in British diplomatic correspondence as 

England’s primary base. 

When Schomburgk drew his “arbitrary line” of demarcation in 1841, he set up posts to indicate 

British dominion at Point Barima, Amacuro and other localities. The Venezuelan Government made 

a vigorous protest, and Lord Aberdeen, then Foreign Secretary, promptly ordered the posts 

removed, thus showing that England felt no certainty of the justice of her claims. 

Lord Aberdeen, in 1844, proposed to the Venezuelans a boundary line which did not follow the 

Schombugk line. It conceded to the Venezuelans a large part of the coast and the mouth of the 

Orinoco River, which Lord Salisbury now claims. Aberdeen’s proposed line began on the coast at 

the mouth of the River Morocco, run straight into the interior, crossing the Schomburgk line at right 

angles. This Aberdeen proposition was the first specific definition of England’s pretended rights, 

and the sole foundation for it in international law was the shadowy allegation that Dutch settlements 

and Indian treaties justified Great Britain in instituting authority over a portion of the trans- 

Esequibo regions, the exact geographical limits of which had never been adjusted. 

It is seen that Lord Aberdeen, in undertaking to trace British Guiana’s extreme rightful 

bounds—thereby fixing a precedent for future British Foreign Secretaries—could find no excuse for 

carrying them further than the mouth of the Morocco. He made no pretense to ownership of the 

grand mouth of the Orinoco. It is claimed to-day by Lord Salisbury, who not only declares that 

England owns the coast up to the terminus of the Schomburgk line at the mouth of the Amacuro, 

but claims land in the interior considerably beyond the furthest westward bend of the Aberdeen line. 

Of course, the Venezuelans declined to accept the Aberdeen line, and nothing further was done 

in the matter until 1850, when the celebrated status quo was established, whereby Great Britain 

agreed not to occupy or encroach upon the territory in dispute in consideration of a similar 

agreement on the part of Venezuela. What was meant by “territory in dispute” was not stated. The 

status quo has never been abrogated. It is claimed by Venezuelans that England has repeatedly 

violated the status quo by invading the territory far beyond either the Schomburgk or Aberdeen line. 

Lord Granville in 1881 proposed to the Venezuelans a new boundary line. It began far north of 

the Aberdeen line on the coast, but a short distance south of the Schomburgk line, and did not 

116


include the Barima River or island, which are now claimed by England. The Granville line in the 

interior followed the Aberdeen line, but gave Venezuela undisputed possession at the mouth of the 

Orinoco. 

This was equivalent to a formal disavowal of any design upon the Boca Grande of the Orinoco; 

in the most positive style the exclusive control was assigned to Venezuela. 

In 1883, (Lord Granville being still at the head of the Foreign Office.) overtures were made to 

Venezuela to have an amicable settlement of the case. Venezuela was anxious for settlement, and 

dispatched Gen. Guzman Blanco, one of the foremost diplomats of South America, to England to 

act in the matter. Gen. Blanco did not waste his time in discussing maps and ancient lines, but bent 

all his energies to secure arbitration of the matter. He gained his point, for June 18, 1883. Lord 

Granville assented to a treaty between England and Venezuela, one clause of which provided that 

any differences not adjustable by the usual means should be submitted to “the arbitration of a third 

power, or of several powers, in amity with both countries, without resorting to war.” 

[Map: The British claims] 

117

1 - 18 December 1895 

This great diplomatic stroke of Gen. Blanco, absolutely bringing England to bay on the 

boundary question, was, however, immediately made of no avail by the overturn of the Gladstone 

Ministry. Lord Salisbury, who took office a few days later, promptly rescinded the arbitration clause 

of the proposed treaty. Since that time England has persistently declined every proposal to arbitrate 

the matter. 

England is not satisfied with repudiating the comparatively moderate boundary designations 

originated by Aberdeen and Granville, but has enlarged her territorial claim with the utmost 

recklessness. The Venezuelan Government contends that the Essequibo-Pumeron-Cuyuni strip is 

the only land fairly in dispute. 


- 87 - 

THE MESSAGE IS INDORSED 

Congressmen in Hearty Accord with the President 

POLITICAL DIFFERENCES ARE IGNORED 

Mr. Cleveland’s Utterances Approved by Republicans as Well as Democrats— 

The Commission Idea Favorably Received 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 17—The President’s message was the topic of general discussion on the 

floor of the Senate long after adjournment. Mr. Voorhees said to a correspondent of The New-York 

Times that he agreed with every recommendation made by the President. “It is a strong message,” 

he said, “and one that will appeal to the American heart. While there may be some difference of 

opinion regarding the best plan to adopt in connection with the Venezuelan question, I shall be 

surprised if the Senate does not follow the recommendation of Mr. Cleveland and authorize him to 

appoint a commission to examine the question in all its bearings. Such a commission should be able 

to report inside of sixty days. I applauded the message because I recognized the patriotic spirit which 

animates it. It will receive the indorsement of the people, beyond a doubt.” 

Senator Faulkner said the message was the strongest that had proceeded from the White House 

during the present Administration. “It is absolutely without a flaw.” He added: 

It puts the question outside of diplomatic shilly-shallying. There may be conflicting views as to the best method 

to be adopted by this country in pursuing the subject to its end, whatever that may be. Personally, I should think 

that the State Department, which has a contingent fund at its disposal, could make the investigation asked for by the 

President and report to Congress with greater dispatch than a commission such as he suggested. The President has 

taken hold of this question in a way that appeals to the true American spirit, and he will be indorsed by all parties. 

This matter has gone beyond the stage of partisan polities. The people know no politics when a question affecting 

the whole country is at stake. It need not surprise you to see a rupture in the Salisbury Cabinet as the direct outcome 

of this message. The position of this country is solid enough. Great Britain has been asked to arbitrate the 

Venezuelan boundary question. She has refused. Now the United States proposes to determine the question at issue 

to its own satisfaction. If it shall be found that Great Britain claims territory to which she is not entitled, she will be 

politely, but firmly, told to retreat beyond the lines marking her rightful possessions. If it shall be found that the 

Venezuelans are wrong, and that Great Britain is not a trespasser, it will be the manly, straightforward course for 

this Government to say so. Whatever will be the result of the investigation which assuredly will be set on foot, there 

can be no doubt, in view of the President’s message, that this Government will strike straight from the shoulder. 

118


That message I regard as a boon to the Democratic Party. It adds immeasurably to the prospects of the Democrats 

in the coming campaign. The outlook for the party is much brighter now than it was yesterday. 

While the American people are opposed to war on general principles, it must not be forgotten that we have 

already had two wars with Great Britain, and there is deep and lasting rivalry between the two nations. One result of 

another contest would be the acquisition, by the United States, of Canada, a country which ought to be included in 

the American Union. 

While a war would be a calamity in one sense, it might eventually prove to be a blessing in disguise. I am 

inclined to think, however, that Great Britain will not go to war over this question. 

Several Senators whose views were requested said they doubted very much whether the 

President’s recommendation of the appointment of a commission would be adopted. 

“We want something livelier than a commission,” said one Senator, who did not care to be 

quoted. “The State Department is amply able to probe this matter, and the Secretary of State ought 

to be instructed to Investigate and report at the earliest possible moment.” 

The message came as a blow between the eyes to some of the Republican “jingoes,” who had 

expected to make political capital cult of the Venezuela question this Winter. They began to look for 

a political trick as soon as the contents of the message were made known to them, and concluded 

that they had found it in the recommendation relative to the commission. 

Senator Cullom, who recently made a speech on the Monroe doctrine and who is inclined to 

view matters from a partisan standpoint, said this afternoon that he did not propose to sanction the 

plan for a Democratic commission to be helping the Democrats in the coming campaign. Mr. 

Cullom was careful to say that he indorsed the general sentiments of the message. Mr. Teller 

unhesitatingly said that he was in favor of upholding the Monroe doctrine against all comers, and 

that the President might rely upon his support. 

Other Senators and Representatives were free to express their opinions, which follow: 

Mr. Brice (Dem., Ohio)—The idea of appointing a commission suggests a long continuance of 

the discussion. Commissions drawing a per diem do not conclude their labors speedily, and no one 

can tell when this commission would cease to draw its per diem. 

Mr. Gorman (Dem., Md.)—It is a very thorough, emphatic, and strong American message. It 

looks very much as if the President intended to enforce the Monroe doctrine. 

Mr. Caffery (Dem., La.)—I have not thoroughly digested the message, but so far as I was able to 

hear it, I am compelled to say that I look upon it as a most extraordinary message. 

Mr. Bacon (Dem., Ga.)—I agree with every word of it. 

Mr. Pugh (Dem., Ala.)—On this matter Democrats and Republicans come together with one 

accord. I am for war and free coinage. The message certainly indicates that there will be war unless 

England backs down. 

Mr. Call (Dem., Fla.)—It is excellent, splendid. The matter is still open to arbitration, and I am 

sure England will finally consent. 

Mr. Vilas (Dem., Wis.)—I look upon it as a strong and able state paper, one that will rank with 

any state paper issued by any Administration. 

Mr. Gray (Dem., Del.)—I must decline to be interviewed on the subject. 

Mr. Chilton (Dem., Tex.)—It is an able a timely declaration of the true American principle. 

Mr. Faulkner (Dem., W. Va.)—This message may affect the Salisbury Ministry before the 

English Prime Minister gets through with it. He must stand up now or go under. There can be no 

such thing as a backdown on the part of the United States. The Congress will indorse and support 

the President in the stand he has taken. 

119

1 - 18 December 1895 

Representative Sherman (Rep., N. Y.)—If the utterances of the President contained in his 

message on Venezuela are in any manner the result of his recent ducking outing I very much regret 

that his Secretary of State did not accompany him on that trip. The message has in it an American 

ring that is as gratifying as it has been unusual during this Administration. I might almost use the 

word “jingo” in reference to it, did not that word grate on Democratic ears. I am glad to commend 

it without qualification. 

Representative Quigg, (Rep., N. Y.)—President Cleveland’s message is admirable in every 

respect. His statement of the grounds upon which the Monroe doctrine is made applicable to the 

Venezuelan boundary question cannot be answered. His definition of our duty in the presence of 

Great Britain’s refusal to arbitrate is clear and true. I shall vote for the commission be proposes and 

entertain the policy he outlines in every way I can. During a visit to Demerara and Venezuela three 

years ago I examined this question very thoroughly and no doubt exists in my mind of the justice of 

Venezuela’s contention. The President has met his duty in a manner which is at once dignified, 

equitable, and complete, and the sentiments of all parties and of the whole country will indorse his 

position heartily. 

M. Grosvenor, (Rep., Ohio)—The message is a strong, clean-cut demand for the observance 

and defense of the Monroe doctrine, and in the light of the dispatches from the British 

Government, it is only a little short of a declaration of war unless England recedes or seeks farther 

diplomacy. The position taken by the President is, at first glance, a step in advance of the former 

official declarations of our country. If the attitude of England, as announced, is the ultimatum, then 

the message is a menace of war. It may be said, in friendly criticism of the message, that it has 

possibly gone just a shade too far in this direction, and apparently the President does not feel much 

need of Congressional action To ascertain facts by a commission to be sent to a foreign country to 

decide and report upon a dispute between two other countries is novel, and will possibly lead to 

results which Congress will not be willing to contribute to. 

Mr. McCall, (Rep., Mass.)—The reply of Lord Salisbury attempts, in effect, to do away with the 

Monroe doctrine. Since Great Britain declines to submit the Venezuelan boundary to arbitration, we 

must ascertain that boundary for ourselves, and then resist any encroachments upon it. The message 

of the President is a spirited and noble document, and should receive the united support of both 

parties. 

Mr. Russell, (Rep., Conn.)—The message is good. Anything less would be unpatriotic and 

cowardly in the President of the United States. A commission will delay the settlement of the 

controversy and furnish information already known. Its suggestion is prudent, perhaps, and allows 

England a chance to retract. It is not necessary, and we don’t want to dally any in this controversy. 

What a pity Mr. Cleveland cannot apply his patriotic instincts to the benefit of our home industries 

as well as to the defense of our rights under the Monroe doctrine. 

Mr. McCreary, (Dem., Ky.)—It is vigorous, positive and able. As a reaffirmation of the Monroe 

doctrine it will attract wide attention, and I believe be generally indorsed by the people. The 

President, having tried faithfully to induce Great Britain to submit the Venezuelan boundary dispute 

to impartial arbitration, and having been apprised of the refusal of Great Britain, he very properly 

suggests that Congress make an appropriation to pay the expenses of a commission, to be appointed 

by the Executive, to make the necessary investigation and report without delay an regards the 

boundary dispute. I admire the firm and positive course taken by the President and I believe the 

House of Representatives will support him in his efforts to uphold the Monroe doctrine and prevent 

Great Britain from making illegal encroachments on the territory of Venezuela. 

120


Mr. Cummings, (Dem., N. Y.)—The message breathes the spirit of Thomas Jefferson, James 

Monroe, and Andrew Jackson. President Cleveland’s action stands in strong contrast with the 

cowardly action of Lord Salisbury in Armenian affairs.. The President stands by the Monroe 

doctrine, and he undoubtedly means every word he says. 

Mr. Bartlett (Dem., N. Y.)—I am glad to see that the President has decided in favor of resisting 

the aggressions of Great Britain in respect to the boundary dispute. I believe it is practically 

conceded that England’s title to a large part of the disputed territory is a title which might alone 

gives. England, in any event, will consent only to arbitrate a small portion of the territory, and will 

insist on maintaining her hold on nearly all of the land. We should force Great Britain to recede 

from her position and relinquish the territory. 

Mr. Livingston, (Dem., Ga.)—Mr. Cleveland’s message is clean-cut American. He distinctly 

recognizes the Monroe doctrine in all its length and breadth, and as specially applicable in the 

dispute pending between Great Britain and Venezuela. He declares emphatically for resistance 

against British oppression, and, like the man he is, against further delay and further appeals on our 

part for arbitration. He suggests the very method contained in my resolution now before Congress, 

for a commission to ascertain for ourselves the true boundary line and then enforce the findings of 

that commission, even if war shall be the result. His message will find a warm response in the hearts 

of all Americans. He recognizes the terrible conflict that would follow, if fight we must, between the 

two great English-speaking peoples; yet admits that there is no calamity which a great Nation can 

invite which equals supine submission and loss of National honor and self-respect. 


- 88 - 

SOUTHERN DIPLOMATS OVERJOYED 

None of Them, However, Is Willing to Talk Publicly of the Measure 

WASHINGTON Dec. 17.—The diplomatic representatives of American republics in 

Washington were highly elated over the President’s message, and nearly all of them cabled copious 

extracts of the document to their respective Governments. Ever since the Corinto affair they had 

been somewhat despondent over the supposed indisposition of the United States to resist foreign 

aggression on the American Continent, but to-day they could not find language adequate to express 

their admiration for President Cleveland’s forcible utterances, particularly in regard to the possible 

resort to other competitions than those “in the arts of peace.” 

None of the Ministers or Chargés d’Affaires, however, consented to speak authoritatively for 

their Governments in the absence of instructions, nor would any be led into a public interview on 

the subject. One who has had perhaps more experience in the international affairs of the United 

States than most of his colleagues in the Diplomatic Corps said that while he was gratified to see 

that the United States had finally taken a firm stand on the Monroe doctrine it would be unwise to 

consider it established in the code of nations, and although he believed European nations would be 

compelled to recognize its force hereafter, it was not by any means sure that its effect could be made 

retroactive, as its application to the Venezuelan matter certainly would be. Aside from this, he hoped 

121

1 - 18 December 1895 

(and in this he believed all American republics would support the United States) that England would 

be forced by war if necessary, to give up the territory she had stolen from Venezuela, and he trusted 

that Congress would authorize the Executive to furnish arms and men to drive out the 40,000 

squatters referred to by Lord Salisbury. 

Another representative of a Government that has a dispute with Great Britain as to a matter of 

land grabbing, differing only in degree from that of Venezuela, declared that if the United States was 

sincere in this matter and supported President Cleveland’s suggestion for a boundary commission 

beyond England’s influence, it would result in that greater desideratum, an alliance both for peace 

and war of the most progressive American republics. The boundary questions in Alaska, he said, 

could then be as quickly settled as that in Venezuela, and the rapid encroachments of Belize on both 

Mexico and Guatemala would be terminated and the title to the territory of Brazil now claimed by 

French and British Guiana would be determined. 

With the bulldozing power of Great Britain nullified, he believed her commercial supremacy 

would disappear, and that trade would flow on north and south lines instead of east and west. 

Another of the South American representatives was disposed, in view of the attitude of the 

United States in past years, and the peculiar political conditions now existing in this country, to await 

the sober second thought of the people in regard to the message. He thought he should like to hear 

what Senator Sherman (the new Chairman of Foreign Relations) said about the readiness of the 

United States to go to war about Venezuela, where its interests were so small, compared with what 

they were presumed to be in Nicaragua and Cuba.. His opinion was that Great Britain would not 

recede behind the Schomburgk line in the British Guiana claim, and that the United States would 

not resort to force in the attempt to compel her to do so. He thought, however, that Lord Salisbury 

would very promptly concede the remainder of the Venezuelan contention, including control of the 

Orinoco mouth, and that the United States would secure Venezuela’s acquiescence in that boundary. 


- 89 - 

RIGHT AND JUSTICE 

The President joins the courage of an American to a jurist’s respect for right and justice. The 

position he takes is immeasurably strengthened by the fact that it is based upon a demand for 

arbitration. Great Britain refusing to submit its pretensions to an impartial examination, the 

President declares that we must constitute a competent court of inquiry. If the court finds that Great 

Britain is right, we shall interpose no obstacle to her at acquiring all the territory as to which her title 

is proved. If she is wrong, the unwarranted seizure of the disputed territory by her would constitute 

and act of aggression which we will not permit. The American people will sustain that position, 

because it is honorable, just, and in accord with a principle to which we have uniformly adhered for 

three-quarters of a century. 

The British Ministry cannot maintain and justify before the people of Great Britain, against the 

firm and united protest of the people of the United States, a cause they dare not or will not submit 

to impartial arbitration. 

122



- 90 - 

LORD SALISBURY’S REPLY 

Declares the Monroe Doctrine Does Not Apply to Venezuela’s Case 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 17.—Lord Salisbury’s answer to Mr. Olney’s note is addressed to Sir 

Julian Pauncefote, the British Ambassador at Washington, and is in two installments, both under 

date of Nov. 20 last. The first note deals with the enunciation of principles laid down by Mr. Olney 

on the basis of the Monroe doctrine while the second merely discusses the boundary question 

between Great Britain and Venezuela. 

The first note follows: 

FOREIGN OFFICE, Nov. 26, 1895. 

Sir: On the 7th August I transmitted to Lord Gough a copy of the despatch from Mr. Olney 

which Mr. Bayard had left with me that day, and of which he had read portions to me. I informed 

him at the time that it could not be answered until it had been carefully considered by the Law 

Officers of the Crown. I have therefore deferred replying to it till after the recess. 

I will not now deal with those portions of it which are concerned exclusively with the 

controversy that has for some time past existed between the Republic of Venezuela and Her 

Majesty’s Government in regard to the boundary which separates their dominions. I take a different 

view from Mr. Olney of various matters upon which he touches in that part of the despatch; but I 

will defer for the present all observations upon it, as it concerns matters which are not in themselves 

of first-rate importance, and do not directly concern the relations between Great Britain and the 


The latter part however of the despatch, turning from the question of the frontiers of Venezuela, 

proceeds to deal with principles of a far wider character, and to advance doctrines of international 

law which are of considerable interest to all the nations whose dominions include any portion of the 

western hemisphere. 

The contentions set forth by Mr. Olney in this part of his despatch are represented by him as 

being an application of the political maxims which are well known in American discussion under the 

name of the Monroe doctrine. As far as I am aware, this doctrine has never been before advanced 

on behalf of the United States in any written communication addressed to the Government of 

another nation; but it has been generally adopted and assumed as true by many eminent writers and 

politicians in the United States. It is said to have largely influenced the Government of that country 

in the conduct of its foreign affairs; though Mr. Clayton, who was Secretary of State under President 

Taylor, expressly stated that that Administration had in no way adopted it. 

Development of the Doctrine 

But during the period that has elapsed since the Message of President Monroe was delivered in 

1823, the doctrine has undergone a very notable development, and the aspect which it now presents 

in the hands of Mr. Olney differs widely from its character when it first issued from the pen of its 

123

1 - 18 December 1895 

author. The two propositions which in effect President Monroe laid down were, first, that America 

was no longer to be looked upon as a field for European colonization; and, secondly, that Europe 

must not attempt to extend its political system to America, or to control the political condition of 

any of the American communities who had recently declared their independence. 

The dangers against which President Monroe thought it right to guard were not as imaginary as 

they would seem at the present day. The formation of the Holy Alliance; the Congresses of Laybach 

and Verona; the invasion of Spain by France for the purpose of forcing upon the Spanish people a 

form of government which seemed likely to disappear, unless it was sustained by external aid, were 

incidents fresh in the mind of President Monroe when he penned his celebrated Message. The 

system of which he speaks, and of which he so resolutely deprecates the application to the American 

Continent, was the system then adopted by certain powerful States upon the Continent of Europe 

of combining to prevent by force of arms the adoption in other countries of political institutions 

which they disliked, and to uphold by external pressure those which they approved. Various 

portions of South America had recently declared their independence, and that independence had not 

been recognized by the Governments of Spain and Portugal, to which, with small exception, the 

whole of Central and South America were nominally subject. 

Danger Not Imaginary 

It was not an imaginary danger that he foresaw, if he feared that the same spirit which had 

dictated the French expedition into Spain might inspire the more powerful Governments of Europe 

with the idea of imposing, by the force of European arms, upon the South American communities 

the form of government and the political connection which they had thrown off. In declaring that 

the United States would resist such enterprise if it was contemplated, President Monroe adopted a 

policy which received the entire sympathy of the English Government of that date. 

The dangers which were apprehended by President Monroe have no relation to the state of 

things in which we live at the present day. There is no danger of any Holy Alliance imposing its 

system upon any portion of the American Continent, and there is no danger of any European State 

treating any part of the American Continent as a fit object for European colonization. It is 

intelligible that Mr. Olney should invoke, in defence of the views on which he is now insisting, an 

authority which enjoys so high a popularity with his own fellow-countrymen. 

But the circumstances with which President Monroe was dealing, and those to which the present 

American Government is addressing itself have very few features in common. Great Britain is 

imposing no “system” upon Venezuela, and is not concerning herself in any way with the nature of 

the political institutions under which the Venezuelans may prefer to live. But the British Empire and 

the Republic of Venezuela are neighbours, and they have differed for some time past, and continue 

to differ, as to the line by which their dominions are separated. 

No Concern of Uncle Sam 

It is a controversy with which the United States have no apparent practical concern. It is 

difficult, indeed, to see how it can materially affect any State or community outside those primarily 

interested, except perhaps other parts of Her Majesty’s dominions, such as Trinidad. The disputed 

frontier of Venezuela has nothing to do with any of the questions dealt with by President Monroe. It 

is not a question of the colonization by a European Power of any portion of America. It is not a 

124


question of the imposition upon the communities of South America of any system of government 

devised in Europe. It is simply the determination of the frontier of a British possession which 

belonged to the Throne of England long before the Republic of Venezuela came into existence. But 

even if the interests of Venezuela were so far linked to those of the United States as to give to the 

latter a locus standi in this controversy, their Government apparently have not formed, and certainly 

do not express, any opinion upon the actual merits of the dispute. 

The Government of the United States do not say that Great Britain, or that Venezuela, is in the 

right in the matters that are in issue. But they lay down that the doctrine of President Monroe, when 

he opposed the imposition of European systems, or the renewal of European colonization, confers 

upon them the right of demanding that when a European Power has a frontier difference with a 

South American community, the European Power shall consent to refer that controversy to 

arbitration; and Mr. Olney states that unless Her Majesty’s Government accede to this demand, it 

will “greatly embarrass the future relations between Great Britain and the United States.” 

Whatever may be the authority of the doctrine laid down by President Monroe, there is nothing 

in his language to show that he ever thought of claiming this novel prerogative for the United States. 

It is admitted that he did not seek to assert a Protectorate over Mexico, or the States of Central and 

South America. Such a claim would have imposed upon the United States the duty of answering for 

the conduct of those States, and consequently the responsibility of controlling it. His sagacious 

foresight would have led him energetically to deprecate the addition of so serious a burden to those 

which the Rulers of the United States have to bear. 

Should Not Act as Protector 

It follows of necessity that if the Government of the United States will not control the conduct 

of these communities, neither can it undertake to protect them from the consequences attaching to 

any misconduct of which they may be guilty towards other nations. If they violate in any way the 

rights of another State, or of its subjects, it is not alleged that the Monroe doctrine will assure them 

the assistance of the United States in escaping from any reparation which they may be bound by 

international law to give. Mr. Olney expressly disclaims such an inference from the principles he lays 

down. 

But the claim which he founds upon them is that, if any independent American State advances a 

demand for territory of which its neighbour claims to be the owner, and that neighbour is the colony 

of a Euro-State, the United States have a right to insist that the European State shall submit the 

demand, and its own impugned rights to arbitration. 

I will not now enter into a discussion of the merits of this method of terminating international 

differences. It has proved itself valuable in many cases; but it is not free from defects, which often 

operate as a serious drawback on its value. It is not always easy to find an Arbitrator who is 

competent, and who, at the same time, is wholly free from bias; and the task of insuring compliance 

with the Award when it is made is not exempt from difficulty. It is a mode of settlement of which 

the value varies much according to the nature of the controversy to which it is applied, and the 

character of the litigants who appeal to it. 

Whether, in any particular case, it is a suitable method of procedure is generally a delicate and 

difficult question. The only parties who are competent to decide that question are the two parties 

whose rival contentions are in issue. The claim of a third nation, which is unaffected by the 

controversy, to impose this particular procedure on either of the two others, cannot be reasonably 

125

1 - 18 December 1895 

justified, and has no foundation in the law of nations. 

In the remarks which I have made, I have argued on the theory that the Monroe doctrine in 

itself is sound. I must not, however, be understood as expressing any acceptance of it on the part of 

Her Majesty’s Government. It must always be mentioned with respect, on account of the 

distinguished statesman to whom it is due, and the great nation who have generally adopted it. But 

international law is founded on the general consent of nations; and no statesman, however eminent, 

and no nation, however powerful, are competent to insert into the code of international law a novel 

principle which was never recognized before, and which has not since been accepted by the 

Government of any other country. 

Rights of Nations Stated 

The United States have a right, like any other nation, to interpose in any controversy by which 

their own interests are affected; and they are the judge whether those interests are touched, and in 

what measure they should be sustained. But their rights are in no way strengthened or extended by 

the fact that the controversy affects some territory which is called American. Mr. Olney quotes the 

recent Chilean war, in which the United States declined to join with France and England in an effort 

to bring hostilities to a close, on account of the Monroe doctrine. The limited States were entirely in 

their right in declining to join in an attempt at pacification if they thought fit; but Mr. Olney’s 

principle that “American questions are for American decision,” even if it receive any countenance 

from the language of President Monroe (which it does not), can not be sustained by any reasoning 

drawn from the law of nations. 

The Government of the United States is not entitled to affirm as a universal proposition, with 

reference to a number of independent States for whose conduct it assumes no responsibility, that its 

interests are necessarily concerned in whatever may befall those States simply because they are 

situated in the Western Hemisphere. It may well be that the interests of the United States are 

affected by something that happens to Chile or to Peru, and that that circumstance may give them 

the right of interference; but such a contingency may equally happen in the case of China or Japan, 

and the right of interference is not more extensive or more assured in the one case than in the other. 

Though the language of President Monroe is directed to the attainment of objects which most 

Englishmen would agree to be salutary, it is impossible to admit that they have been inscribed by 

any adequate authority in the code of international law; and the danger which such admission would 

involve is sufficiently exhibited both by the strange development which the doctrine has received at 

Mr. Olney’s hands, and the arguments by which it is supported, in the despatch under reply. In 

defence of it he says: 

“That distance and 3,000 miles of intervening ocean make any permanent political union 

between a European and an American State unnatural and inexpedient will hardly be denied. But 

physical and geographical considerations are the least of the objections to such a union. Europe has 

a set of primary interests which are peculiar to herself; America is not interested in them, and ought 

not to be vexed or complicated with them.” 

And, again: “Thus far in our history we have been spared the burdens and evils of immense 

standing armies and all the other accessories of huge warlike establishment; and the exemption has 

highly contributed to our national greatness and wealth, as well as to the happiness of every citizen. 

But with the powers of Europe permanently encamped on American soil, the ideal conditions we 

have thus far enjoyed cannot be expected to continue.” 

126


Meaning of Mr. Olney’s Words 

The necessary meaning of these words is that the union between Great Britain and Canada; 

between Great Britain and Jamaica and Trinidad; between Great Britain and British Honduras or 

British Guiana are “inexpedient and unnatural.” President Monroe disclaims any such inference 

from his doctrine; but in this, as in other respects, Mr. Olney develops it. He lays down that the 

inexpedient and unnatural character of the union between a European and American State is so 

obvious that it “will hardly be denied.” Her Majesty’s Government are prepared emphatically to 

deny it on behalf of both the British and American people who are subject to her Crown. They 

maintain that the union between Great Britain and her territories in the Western Hemisphere is both 

natural and expedient. 

They fully concur with the view which President Monroe apparently entertained, that any 

disturbance of the existing territorial distribution in that hemisphere by any fresh acquisitions on the 

part of any European State would be a highly inexpedient change. But they are not prepared to 

admit that the recognition of that expediency is clothed with the sanction which belongs to a 

doctrine of international law. 

They are not prepared to admit that the interests of the United States are necessarily concerned 

in every frontier dispute which may arise between any two of the States who possess dominion in 

the Western Hemisphere; and still less can they accept the doctrine that the United States are 

entitled to claim that the process of arbitration shall be applied to any demand for the surrender of 

territory which one of those States may make against another. 

I have commented in the above remarks only upon the general aspect of Mr. Olney’s doctrines, 

apart from the special considerations which attach to the controversy between the United Kingdom 

and Venezuela in its present phase. This controversy has undoubtedly been made more difficult by 

the inconsiderate action of the Venezuelan Government in breaking off relations with Her Majesty’s 

Government, and its settlement has been correspondingly delayed; but Her Majesty s Government 

have not surrendered the hope that it will be adjusted by a reasonable arrangement at an early date. 

I request that you will read the substance of the above despatch to Mr. Olney, and leave him a 

copy if he desires it. 


- 91 - 

SAYS BRITAIN’S CLAIMS ARE JUST 

Disputed Territory, Salisbury Declares, Was Acquired by Conquest 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 17.—Lord Salisbury’s note of Nov. 26 concludes the correspondence. 

His object in writing it is, he says, because it seems desirable, in order to remove some evident 

misapprehensions as to the main features of the question, and that the statement of the boundary 

dispute contained in the earlier portion of Mr. Olney s dispatch should not be left without reply. 

“Such a course,” he says, “will be the more convenient, because, in consequence of the suspension 

of diplomatic relations, I shall not have the opportunity of setting right misconceptions of this kind 

in the ordinary way, in a dispatch addressed to the Venezuelan Government itself.” 

127

1 - 18 December 1895 

Great Britain, Lord Salisbury is careful to note, has heretofore refrained from presenting any 

detailed statement of its case either to the United States or any foreign Government, and he 

therefore thinks Mr. Olney’s argument must be founded mainly, if not entirely, on ex parte 

statements emanating from Venezuela, and giving au erroneous view of many material facts. 

Lord Salisbury denies that the boundary question, as stated by Mr. Olney, is of ancient origin. It 

did not commence, he says, until after 1840. Great Britain’s title, says his Lordship, to the territory in 

dispute, was derived by conquest from the Dutch and military occupation of Dutch settlements in 

1796. 

As to the claim that Venezuela acquired the territory she now claims by assumption of all the 

territory of Spain, Lord. Salisbury contends that this is an acknowledgment of her non-ownership of 

the territory now claimed by Great Britain, as Spain had not asserted ownership of it. 

Continuing, he says: 

“The fundamental principle underlying the Venezuelan argument is, in fact, that, inasmuch as 

Spain was originally entitled of right to the whole of the American Continent, any territory on that 

continent which she cannot be shown to have acknowledged in positive and specific terms to have 

passed to another owner, can only have been acquired by wrong usurpation, an if situated to the 

north of the Amazon and west of the Atlantic, must necessarily belong to Venezuela as her selfconstituted 

inheritor in those regions. It may reasonably be asked whether Mr. Olney would consent 

to refer to the arbitration of another power pretentions raised by the Government of Mexico on 

such a foundation to large tracts of territory which had long been comprised in the federation.” 

The marking of the Schomburgk line is reviewed at length, and this line, Lord Salisbury states, 

instead of being an encroachment on Venezuelan territory, was, in fact, “a great reduction of the 

boundary claimed by Great Britain as a matter or right, and its proposal originated in a desire to 

come to a speedy and friendly arrangement with a weaker power with whom Great Britain was at 

the time, and desired to remain, in cordial relations.” 

Lord Salisbury says that it will be seen that Great Britain has from the first held the same view as 

to the extent of the territory which they are entitled to claim as a matter of right. It comprised the 

coast line up to the River Amacura, and the whole basin at the Esequibo River and its tributaries. A 

portion of that claim, however, says Lord Salisbury, they have always been willing to waive 

altogether; in regard to another portion they have been and continue to be perfectly ready to submit 

the uestion of their title to arbitration. 

As regards the rest, that which lies within the so-called Schomburgk line, they do not consider 

that the rights of Great Britain are open to question. Even within that line they have, on various 

occasions, offered to Venezuela considerable concessions as a matter at friendship and conciliation, 

and for the purpose of securing an amicable settlement of the dispute. 

If, as time has gone on, the concessions thus offered diminished in extent, and have now been 

withdrawn, this has been the necessary consequence of the gradual spread over the country of 

British settlements, which her Majesty’s Government cannot, in justice to the inhabitants, offer to 

surrender to foreign rule, and the justice of such withdrawal is amply borne out by the researches in 

the national archives of Holland and Spain, which have furnished further and more convincing 

evidence in support of the British claims. 

Lord Salisbury intimates that when the internal politics of Venezuela are on a more durable basis 

the British Government may be enabled to adopt a more moderate and conciliatory course in regard 

to this question, and has not abandoned the hope that the negotiations of 1890, 1891, and 1893 may 

be resumed with better success. He disclaims any intention of Great Britain to secure territory that 

128


does not belong to her, and states her desire to be on friendly relations with Venezuela. In 

conclusion, he says, referring to the British Government: 

“They have, on the contrary, repeatedly expressed their readiness to submit to arbitration the 

conflicting claims of Great Britain and Venezuela to large tracts of territory, which, from their 

auriferous nature, are known to be of almost untold value. But they cannot consent to entertain, or 

to submit to arbitration of another power, or of foreign jurists, however eminent, claims based on 

the extravagant pretensions of Spanish officials in the last century, and involving the transfer of large 

numbers of British subjects who have for many years enjoyed the settled rule of a British colony, to 

a nation of different race and language, whose political system is subject to frequent disturbances, 

and whose institutions as yet too often afford very inadequate protection to life and property. 

“No issue of this description has ever been involved in the questions which Great Britain and 

the United States have consented to submit to arbitration, and her Majesty’s Government is 

convinced that in similar circumstances the Government of the United States would be equally firm 

in declining to entertain proposals of such a nature.” 


- 92 - 

THE PEOPLE WILL SUSTAIN THE PRESIDENT 

The declarations of Mr. Cleveland’s special message on the Venezuelan affair are very serious. 

They are more so than the American public had expected, though they are absolutely in harmony 

with the brief statement contained in the message of Dec. 3. The first impression made by the 

present message undoubtedly will be, coming from a President of such sober and independent 

judgment, with so deep a sense of his responsibility, and so free alike from the influence of popular 

passion or the bias of personal ambition, that it rests on a strong case. And this general, this 

practically universal confidence in the high character of Mr. Cleveland is a very weighty element in 

the situation. The people of the United States have always been and always will be prompt and firm 

in sustaining their Government in the assertion of their rights. Their feeling and their action are the 

more sure when they know that these rights are interpreted by a calm, clear, and just mind. 

The substance of the case as submitted by the President may be briefly stated. In the dispute 

between Great Britain and Venezuela, which has existed in various stages of acuteness for more than 

a half century, Great Britain, starting from the boundary of the unquestioned territory of her colony 

of British Guiana, had at successive periods claimed a different and gradually greater extent of 

territory. The dispute having reached a critical stage, the President communicated to the British 

Government, in July last, a statement of what the United States regarded as their just and essential 

policy in the premises. This is in effect that no European power can be allowed, by the forcible 

extension of its territory on this continent or by other means, to extend its system over, or to 

oppress or control, the destiny of any independent American State. The question in the present case 

is, What is the boundary of British territory? Whatever it can fairly and fully be shown to be, the 

United States will respect it, but it should not be determined arbitrarily by Great Britain alone. It can 

only honorably and decisively be determined by arbitration, which the United States had urged on 

129

1 - 18 December 1895 

Great Britain for many years. The President requested of the British Government to be informed 

whether arbitration will be adopted. 

The British Government has, with an elaborate statement of its case and with an extended 

discussion of the principles advanced and the policy avowed by the United States, declined to 

submit to arbitration, and equally, of course, denies the tight of the United States to require it. 

Assuming that Venezuela maintains the position thus far taken, the President says: 

The dispute has reached such a stage as to make it now incumbent upon the United States to take measures to 

determine, with sufficient certainty for its justification, what is the true divisional line between the Republic of 

Venezuela and British Guiana. The inquiry to that end should, of course, be conducted carefully and judicially, and 

due weight should be given to all available evidence, records, and facts in support of the claims of both parties. 

In order that such an examination should be prosecuted in a thorough and satisfactory manner, I suggest that 

the Congress make an adequate appropriation for the expenses of a commission to be appointed by the Executive, 

who shall make the necessary investigation and report upon the matter with the least possible delay. When such 

report is made and accepted it will, in my opinion, be the duty of the United States to resist by every means in its 

power, as a willful aggression upon its rights and interests, the appropriation by Great Britain of any lands or the 

exercise of governmental jurisdiction over any territory which, after investigation, we have determined of right 

belong to Venezuela. 

This declaration, as we have said, is very serious. It is made still more so by the closing words of 

the message: 

In making these recommendations I am fully alive to the full responsibility incurred, and keenly realize all the 

consequences that may follow. I am nevertheless firm in my conviction that, while it is a grievous thing to 

contemplate the two great English-speaking peoples of the world as being otherwise than friendly competitors in 

the onward march of civilization and strenuous and worthy rivals in all the arts of peace, there is no calamity which 

a great nation can invite which equals that which follows a supine submission to wrong and injustice, and the 

consequent loss of national self respect and honor, beneath which is shielded and defended a people’s safety and 

greatness. 

It does not, in our judgment, express the scope or the authority of the principle involved in this 

message to designate it as a “doctrine” or to attach to it the name of any President, whether that of 

Monroe or another. It includes, we believe, a rational and fair application of the essential part of the 

“Monroe doctrine” as it has repeatedly been declared by the Government of the United States under 

successive Administrations and in varied circumstances. But it is now submitted to the judgment of 

the American Nation as an American principle. As it stands to-day in the message of the President, it 

is a clear, grave assertion that the United States will see justice done, neither asking more nor 

accepting less, to any Independent State on this continent. To that principle soon or late we believe 

Great Britain will assent. By that principle, in any event, the American Nation will stand. 


- 93 - 

THE MONROE DOCTRINE 

How It Was Expressed by Its Author in Messages Regarding It 

130


In a pamphlet entitled “The Monroe Doctrine: Its Origin and Meaning,” prepared by John 

Bassett Moore, Professor of International Law at Columbia College, may be found all the passages 

in President Monroe’s messages that have been cited as containing the expression of his doctrine. At 

the beginning of Mr. Moore’s pamphlet are the two following extracts, numbered respectively I and 

II: 

I 

“At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made through the Minister of the 

Emperor residing here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the Minister of the 

United States at St. Petersburg to arrange, by amicable negotiation, the respective rights and interests 

of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal has been made by his 

imperial Majesty to the Government of Great Britain, which has like wise been acceded to. . . In the 

discussions to which this interest has given rise, and in the arrangements by which they may 

terminate, the occasion has been judged proper for asserting as a principle in which the rights and 

interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and 

independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered 

as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.” —Paragraph 7, message of Dec. 2, 

1823. 

II 

“In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any 

part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously 

menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. 

“With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and 

by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of 

the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference 

proceeds tram that which exists in their respective Governments. And to the defense or our own, 

which has been achieved by the loss of much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of 

their most enlightened citizens and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole 

Nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between 

the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to 

extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With 

the existing colonies or dependencies at any European power we have not interfered and shall not 

interfere. 

“But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose 

independence we have, on great consideration and just principles, acknowledged, we could not view 

any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them or controlling in any other manner their 

destiny by any European power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly 

disposition toward the United States. . . 

“Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so 

long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in 

the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the Government de facto as the legitimate 

Government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, 

131

1 - 18 December 1895 

firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries 

from none. 

“But in regard to these continents, circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is 

impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either 

continent without endangering our peace and happiness, nor can any one believe that our southern 

brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it at their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, 

that we should behold such interposition in any farm with indifference.”—Paragraphs 48 and 49, 

Message of Dec. 2, 1823. 

It will be observed that the above two passages, which are sometimes printed together as if they 

farmed one continuous passage and were intended to convey one idea, are widely separated in 

President Monroe’s message. In reality they relate to two different subjects. 


132


- Part 4 - 

19 - 20 December 1895 

133

19 – 20 December 1895 

134


- 94 - 

ALTGELD DOES SOME JEERING 

Illinois Governor Has No Faith in the President 

SPRINGFIELD, Ill., Dec. 18.—Gov. Altgeld talked freely last night concerning the attitude of 

President Cleveland on the Venezuelan matter as shown in his message. He said: 

“This message is a loud cry to Congress to help the Administration let go or a tiger’s tail, and it 

shows clearly that the Administration is looking around for a hole in the fence to creep through in 

order to get out of the field in which it has been doing some grunting and a little rooting. This 

Venezuela boundary-line question is old. If there was any uncertain point connected with it, then the 

Administration should have gotten the necessary information before it made any protest to the 

British Government. 

“Now, suppose a commission is appointed and it gets through the form of an investigation and 

then reports that the facts are in favor of England and that we ought never to have interfered and 

have no grounds for protesting, how will we then look in the sight of the other nations? 

“And you notice the President asks that he be permitted to name this commission. Of course, he 

will name friends of his, and they will not report until he asks them to.” 

CHICAGO, Dec. 18.—Merchants, Board of Trade members, Judges, lawyers, and prominent 

men of the Chicago business world generally who were asked to-day for an expression of opinion 

regarding the message of the President to Congress spoke approvingly of the position taken by the 

Government and in the majority of cases indulged in enthusiastic praise. There were a few 

exceptions, but the criticism was actuated by partisan feeling. Among the leading Democrats 

identified with the party management in the State and county none could be found who would say 

for publication that they approved of the criticism of the message by Gov. Altgeld, and several wore 

outspoken in declaring that the Governor acted ill-advisedly from a party standpoint. 

Es-Mayor Hopkins was credited with saying that the criticism would cost the Governor a 

renomination and retire him politically. 

P. D. Armour said: “I think it is a very good message. I do not think we will have any war with 

England, as matters have not reached the point where they cannot be amicably settled, but if there is 

war I believe it would be thoroughly justifiable on the part of the United States. There arc a great 

many of us Republicans who like Mr. Cleveland.” 

Marshall Field said; ‘Some one will have to back down in this international dispute. I need not 

say whether it will be the President or Lord Salisbury. Ex-Minister Lincoln says Lord Salisbury once 

offered to arbitrate the question. He may be willing to do so now.” 

Ex-United States Senator Charles B. Farwell said: “I believe Lord Salisbury should have acceded 

to President Cleveland’s request for arbitration. President Cleveland has the courage of his 

convictions and I believe the Monroe doctrine should be upheld strictly in the present dispute.” 


135

19 – 20 December 1895 

- 95 - 

A GLANCE AT VENEZUELA 

Something About the Country and Its Valuable Resources. 

HER RICH AND VALUED PRODUCTIONS 

Position of the Republic—The Cities, Lakes, Rivers and Form 

of Government—Natural Wealth and Character of the People 

Although the Republic of Venezuela has been a somewhat settled and comparatively welldefined 

country for over 400 years, it was not until recently that the attention of the people of the 

United States became strongly attracted to this sister republic on the South American continent. 

Venezuela, indeed, has been practically left to the unaided resources of development of its own 

inhabitants, since the period when the ancient Spanish conquerors abandoned the territory for those 

other regions on the slopes of the Andes, where the precious metals were seemingly much more 

abundant, and were to be had with the expenditure of infinitely less time and trouble. During these 

several centuries the country slumbered, and its wonderful natural resources lay undiscovered. 

This was in part due to the situation of the country, and in part the consequence of the easygoing 

disposition of the descendants of the original Spanish inhabitants. Immigration, however, 

added to the awakened spirit of the age, has astonishingly quickened the impulses of the 

Venezuelans, as is attested by the rapid growth and quickly perfected character of their chief cities, 

notably Caracas, the capital of the nation and of its federal districts, which has been likened by 

travelers to Paris on a smaller scale. 

The chief knowledge of Venezuela gained from the school geographies of a quarter of a century 

ago was circumscribed by the fact that it was the first land seen by Columbus on his third voyage to 

the west, and that it was traversed by the Orinoco, one of the greatest rivers of the world. It was 

pictured as a region of limitless tropic forests, immense plains, and vast mountain ranges. 

Venezuela has frequently been styled in reference to its dispute with England over its boundary 

line, a small country. It is so only in the comparative sense, when contrasted in the mind figuratively 

with the enormous development and compact civilization of Great Britain. Venezuela is a large 

country—larger than France, Germany, and Holland combined. It is equal in extent to the great 

States of Texas, Colorado, Idaho, and California joined together. 

Including the territory in dispute with England, Venezuela has an area of almost 600,000 square 

miles. 

Visitors to the Chicago World’s Fair were astonished to see the variety of the productions of 

Venezuela there displayed. These included many kinds at maize, starch, sugar and sugar cane, honey, 

beans, coffee, cocoa, chocolate, tobacco, hemp, palm, leaves, cotton, silk-cotton, silk-wool, 

vegetable horsehair, vegetable sponges, mineral waters, alcoholic, and other beverages, castor beans, 

castor oil, cocoanut oil, crab oil, sassafras oil, vanilla, soaps, beeswax, ornamental woods, dyeing and 

tanning woods, and barks, gums, resins, and caoutchoue, brooms, baskets, fibres, preserved fruits, 

coal, gold and silver, asbestos, copper, opal, talc, calcic spar, galena, tonka beans, lignite, petroleum, 

marble, paving stones, stalactites, kaolin, pipe-clay, magnesian limestone, sulphur, rubber, indigo, 

phosphate, guano, iron ore, mustard, sarsaparilla cinchona bark, cola nuts, tamarinds, and aloes. 

Of forest woods alone there were 145 varieties, including a fine specimen of the algarrabo, a 

beautiful wood of dark yellowish color, streaked with green veins. There were besides many 

136


specimens at prepared products, chemical and pharmaceutical, and of manufactures, not to speak of 

a collection of paintings by Venezuelan artists and of many books and newspapers. 

Venezuela lies altogether within the torrid equatorial region, the great line passing through the 

southernmost territory of Alto-Amazonas. Notwithstanding this, the temperature of the country is 

much milder than that of the African equatorial coast lands—for instance, Guinea and Zanzibar. 

Situated at the northern end of South America, with the Caribbean Sea to the north, the Atlantic 

Ocean on the east, and high mountains in the interior, Venezuela is peculiarly favored by the natural 

elements. Three mountain ranges rear snow-capped summits to the sky—the Andes, the Coast 

Range, and the Parima Mountains. The Andes cross the northwestern States from northeast to 

southwest. The Coast Range runs parallel with the Caribbean coast The Parima Mountains, 

beginning in the interior of the central western State of Bolivar, run east and west and mark the 

southern limit of the agricultural zone. 

Venezuela has the shape or a three-leafed clover, with the stem on the Caribbean coast. Speaking 

generally, nearly every State in the country is mountainous to some degree. Among the mountains 

the country varies in temperature from moderate to very cold. The temperate lands begin at the 

height of 7,000 feet above and descend until within 2,000 feet of the sea level. Below that level are 

the hot countries. 

There are but two seasons in Venezuela, the wet and the dry. When the sun reaches the Tropic 

of Capricorn the rains begin, and they do not stop until the sun has entered the Tropic of Cancer. 

Thus it is rainy and hot from April to October, and the rest of the year it is dry and cooler. During 

the summer the prevailing winds are from the northeast. There are heavy rainstorms called 

“northers” usually in November and December. 

There are over 1,000 rivers and brooks in Venezuela, of which over 400 are affluents of the 

Orinoco. The Orinoco is navigable 850 miles from the ocean, and taps the fertile regions in the 

interior of the Colombia Republic. Some of the navigable tributaries of the Orinoco run south and 

join the Amazon or its tributaries, thus opening a double route to the sea. Besides this network of 

rivers, there are two large inland lakes, one of which, Lake Maracaibo, is as large as the Great Salt 

Lake in Utah, with an area of 2,100 square miles. The other, Lake Valencia, is 1,700 feet above the 

sea level. 

There are three kinds of soil in Venezuela—agricultural, grazing, and wooded. There are 13,600 

square miles of agricultural land, of which only 300 square miles are under cultivation. The Orinoco 

sweeps over the arc of an immense circle, entering on the east coast, and emerging from the country 

on the southwest border. There are over 70 islands on the coast, the largest, Margarita, being 441 

square miles in area. There are over 1,500 miles of coast scattered along which are 32 harbors and 50 

bays. Like the great lakes of the United States, the two great inland lakes of Venezuela have their 

own ports. There are five gulfs on the ocean coast, the largest of which is the Gulf of Maracaibo, 

1,600 square miles in extent. 

There are many mines in operation throughout Venezuela, the more valuable being in the 

Yuruari region, which is in the disputed territory. There is situated the famous Callao gold mine. 

Gold is also found in the mountainous districts of the Yaracui River, and near the cities of San 

Felipe and Nirgua. Several rich gold mines near Carupano are being worked with New York capital, 

and have assayed seven ounces to the ton. There are silver, copper, and lead mines in Venezuela. 

Seventy miles east of Puerto Cabello are the valuable Aroa copper mines, from which comes the red 

copper. In the Cordillera region are red hematite and iron deposits. The largest deposits of these 

ores are near the Imataca River, which is one of the tributaries of the Lower Orinoco. A dozen miles 

137

19 – 20 December 1895 

from Barcelona are extensive deposits of bituminous coal. The Pedernales asphalt is similar to the 

Egyptian refined product. 

There are rich salt beds in the Araya Peninsula which have been constantly worked since 1499, 

when they were discovered by Nino. In the last quarter of a century they have produced a 

Government revenue of $2,700,000. 

In Lagrenillas, near Merida, there is a lake the bottom of which is covered with sesqui carbonate 

of soda, which the natives call urao. There are large deposits of sulphur in Barcelona, Cremona, and 

Coro, and there are inexhaustible granite quarries in the Silla Mountain, near Caracas. Granite, chalk, 

slate, and marble abound on the coast and in the Parima Mountains. Over nine tons of solid gold 

were taken from the Yururi mines from 1886 to 1890. In Coro, at La Quiva, near the Pedregal road, 

there are forty springs which gush through beds as white as porcelain. Agriculture in Venezuela is 

mainly confined to the raising of coffee, cocoa and sugar cane. There are mother-of-pearl deposits in 

Neuva Esparta. 

Venezuela is a Federal republic. Its Constitution is modeled on those of the United States and 

Switzerland. It. gives autonomy to the States in the confederation. There are open elections, free 

speech, free press, religious liberty, security of person and property, prohibition of slavery, and no 

imprisonment for debt. 

But in Venezuela there is no writ of habeas corpus and no trial by jury. The legislative power is 

lodged in a Senate and a House of Deputies There are three Senators from each State, and, with 

their alternates, they serve four years. One Deputy is apportioned to each 35,000 inhabitants. The 

Venezuelan Congress consists of 27 Senators and 53 Deputies. 

The population of Venezuela is 2,400,000 by the latest census. On the peace footing the army 

numbers 7,000 men. In case of war the effective force can be raised to 60,000 men. The annual 

revenue of the country is $5,500,000, of which two-thirds is from customs duties. Venezuela imports 

annually $13,000,000 worth of merchandise, and exports $16,000,000 worth. The principal export is 

coffee, equal to $15,000,000 per annum. Venezuela buys $1,000,000 worth of goods yearly from 

Great Britain, and sells John Bull only $500,000 worth annually. The United States bought 

$12,000,000 worth of goods from Venezuela in 1891. Venezuela has borrowed from Deputy from 

each State and a Deputy from French bankers $750,000. The internal debt amounts to $7,500,000. 

The executive power of Venezuela is vested in a president, who acts in conjunction with his 

Cabinet and the Federal Council. He holds office two years, and cannot be at once re-elected. The 

Federal Council is composed of a Senator and deputy from each State and a deputy from the Federal 

District, chosen by Congress from among its own members, for the term of two years. The Federal 

Council chooses the President of Venezuela from its own ranks. The courts are organized much like 

those in the United States. There is a system of free public schools. The Federal District 

corresponds to the District of Columbia. 

The chief city of Venezuela is the capital, Caracas. It has a population of 75,000 persons. The 

other chief cities are Valencia, 40,000 population; Maracaibo, 35,000; Barquisimeto, 32,000, and 

Ciudad Bolivar, 12,000. 

In one of the fine public squares in Caracas is a large statue of George Washington. 

Venezuela remained under Spanish rule until 1811, when Simon Bolivar proclaimed her 

independent. The independence of Venezuela was recognized by Spain in 1845. In 1846 a series of 

civil wars began, and did not close until 1870. All slaves were emancipated in 1854. In 1864 a 

Federal Constitution was drawn up. Guzman Blanco became Dictator in 1870, when he was elected 

President. 

138


The people of Venezuela are in the main descended from the Spaniards. A. good deal of Indian 

blood has been mingled with the Spanish strain. They are a talented and courteous people, who bear 

the reputation of being fine fighters. A considerable part of Venezuela is still practically unexplored, 

and is inhabited by aborigines. The republic is divided into nine States, a Federal District, and five 

Federal Territories. There are 3,900 miles of telegraph wire. Five steamship lines ply along the 

Venezuelan coasts and through the rivers. There are 234 miles of railroads. The monetary unit of the 

country is the bolivar, equal to 19¼ cents American money. 

Caracas, the capital, is situated in the Valley of Chacao, seven miles distant from the Caribbean 

coast. The city is regularly laid out. There are two main streets, which cross each other at right 

angles. There are several fine parks. The city was almost totally destroyed by an earthquake in 1812. 


- 96 - 

THE RESULTS OF WAR 

Mr. Henderson Says the United States Would Suffer 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 18.—John B. Henderson Jr., son of ex-Senator Henderson of Missouri, 

John W. Foster’s private secretary in the peace negotiations between China and Japan, has issued in 

pamphlet form an argument on the relations of the Monroe doctrine to the Venezuelan question. 

After recounting the boundary question, showing the British and Venezuelans were equally negligent 

in settling the boundaries of Guiana, “a country in which the statistics show that the deaths nearly 

double the number of births,” Mr. Henderson attributes to the discovery of gold the intensification 

of the dispute, just as a similar condition now threatens trouble in Alaska, and then proceeds to 

consider the interest the United States, as a nation, has in the controversy. 

He begins with the farewell address of Washington and goes through the history of the 

developments of the Monroe doctrine just as Secretary Olney did in his dispatch of July 20, but 

reaches conclusions precisely opposite to those adopted by the Secretary of State and President 

Cleveland. 

He recalls “that Sir Walter Raleigh ascended the Orinoco River, as an English discoverer, twentyfive 

years before Plymouth Rock was ever pressed by Puritan foot; and it must be further 

remembered that for nearly 300 years the Guiana country was claimed and colonized alternately by 

England, Holland, France and Spain; but in 1803, twenty years before the Monroe declaration was 

proclaimed, all right and title to what is now known as British Guiana passed to the English 

Government, and since that date the English title has been undisputed.” 

After numerous quotations from American statesmen on the limitations of the Monroe doctrine 

to the attempt to restore Spanish dominion over American republics, Mr. Henderson declares that 

the doctrine received its authoritative exposition by a resolution adopted by the House of 

Representatives in 1825 in the following words: 

That the United States ought not to become a party with the Spanish-American republics, or either of them, to 

any joint declaration for the purpose of preventing interference by any of the European powers with their 

independence or form of government, or to any compact for the purpose of preventing colonization upon the 

139

19 – 20 December 1895 

continent of America, but that the people of the United States should be left free to act in any crisis in such a 

manner as their feelings and friendship toward these republics, and as their own honor and policy may, at the time, 

dictate. 

Mr. Henderson concludes his paper as follows: 

If, in the progress of the negotiation between Venezuela and Great Britain we shall discover in the conduct of 

the latter a disposition to use the question of unsettled boundaries as a mere pretext to extend her territorial limits at 

the expense of our sister republic, we are still free to denounce such act hostile and unfriendly, and even “dangerous 

to our peace and safety,” should the circumstances, when carefully considered, seem to justify such a declaration. At 

present the English Government claims to be the “innocent and injured party”; that Venezuela is the aggressor, not 

only in asserting a false boundary line, but in arresting British subjects on territory which has for an indefinite period 

been known and recognized by both Governments as the property of England. The truth or falsity of this claim is 

not yet developed. 

If true, England is clearly justified. If false, it will be time enough for us to act. 

In a material point of view, a war with England, whatever the result, can bring nothing to compensation for its 

losses. Over one-half of our exports now go to England. While we annually sell to her nearly $500,000,000 worth of 

our products, we sell to Venezuela about $4,000,000 worth, and to all the Spanish South American republics less 

than $20,000,000 worth. Such a war means ruined commerce, increased National debt, a new pension list, and 

taxation of the people to the very extreme of poverty and want. 

The pamphlet has attracted much attention from members of Congress and diplomats. 


- 97 - 

AWAITING OFFICIAL NEWS 

The British Government Not Regularly Informed 

COMMISSION MAY HASTEN A CRISIS 

Its Arrival on the Guiana Border Liable to be Regarded as a Menace 

European Views and Effects 

LONDON, Dec. 18.—The Marquis of Salisbury held the usual Wednesday reception at the 

Foreign Office to-day. The French, German, Italian, and Spanish Ambassadors, and the Austrian 

and Dutch Chargés d’Affaires were present. United States Ambassador Bayard was absent. 

It is understood that the British Government has not been informed officially of the proposed 

commission in connection with the Venezuelan boundary dispute, and that Great Britain will follow 

the usual diplomatic course until overt action is taken by the United States. 

The action of the House of Representatives in voting an appropriation for the expenses of the 

commission may hasten a crisis, but it is not expected that there will be serious developments until 

the commission shall have arrived in Venezuela. Its presence on the Guiana border will constitute a 

grave menace, and the necessary instructions will be forwarded to the authorities to maintain the 

interests of Great Britain in Guiana. 

It is the opinion in financial circles here that President Cleveland’s message will render the 

placing of a new issue of United States bonds in London impossible. 

140


A representative of The United Press interviewed a number of prominent Stock Exchange 

operators, from whom he elicited expressions of belief that the affair would not finally be serious, 

and that the fall of prices resultant from President Cleveland’s message would not be permanent. 

A number of politicians seen at the various Conservative clubs by The United Press representative 

maintained that diplomats, acting under the instructions of Lord Salisbury, had sounded the 

European powers during last Autumn, and prior to the dispatch of Great Britain’s reply to Secretary 

Olney’s note, with the result that the diplomats answered that all the powers having interests in 

America agreed with Lord Salisbury that the Monroe doctrine as stated by Mr. Olney, did not 

possess any international authority. 

All attempts to obtain from United States Ambassador Bayard an expression of his views in 

regard to President Cleveland’s message or any other phase of the Venezuelan dispute have been 

fruitless. Mr. Bayard positively declines to say a word on the subject. 

The first announcement in London of the communication of President Cleveland’s message to 

Congress was made in a United Press dispatch to The Central News, the leading features of which the 

Central News immediately sent to the Foreign Office, whence they were at once transmitted to Lord 

Salisbury at Hatfield House over the Premier’s private wires. 

This was the first intimation that Lord Salisbury had had of President Cleveland’s serious view of 

the Venezuelan situation. The Premier and his secretaries were greatly concerned over the critical 

turn which the affair had taken and asked for further information expressing their thanks to The 

United Press for its promptness in cabling the important news and to The Central News for its courtesy 

in placing it at their disposal. 


- 98 - 

The President’s Message as Viewed by Frenchmen 

PARIS, Dec. 18.—M. Lucien Millevoye, formerly a member of the Chamber of Deputies, has an 

article in La Patrie in which he says: 

“President Cleveland’s message inflicts a harder blow on British pride than it has received in a 

century. It will diminish England’s prestige in all parts of the world. England must undertake and 

ultra-formidable adventure or bow to the Americans’ haughty ultimatum. Since Napoleon 

threatened to invade England no chief of State has dared to use toward the British Foreign Office 

such firm language as that of Mr. Cleveland’s. 

“England is in a dilemma. Submission is equivalent to humiliation, and resistance is equivalent to 

war, an implacable duel with all the energy and the moral and material forces which America has at 

its disposal, including the Irish, whom England’s iniquitous rule has exiled to the New World. 

Europe will not intervene. It would not dare to brave an American coalition roused to anger by an 

attack upon its dearest interests. The time is past when British diplomacy bribed half the world and 

intimidated the remainder. It is only audacious now with weaklings like the Matabeles; it will now 

and warn her that she need not look for any help from France.” 


141

19 – 20 December 1895 

- 99 - 

AMERICAN NEWSPAPER COMMENT 

The President’s Course Receives the Approval of the Press 

All the American newspapers, with one or two exceptions, heartily approve President 

Cleveland’s attitude regarding Britain’s claims to Venezuelan territory. North and South, East and 

West the papers give unqualified approval. Below will be found the views of leading Journals: 

ALBANY, N.Y., Dec. 18.—The Journal says: 

Albany 

“The message of President Cleveland appeals to the people of this country at a time when conditions compare 

similarly in not a single respect with those existent in 1823, when President Monroe promulgated the Monroe 

doctrine. To-day there exists no fear that any Continental nation or alliance of nations will extend its system to any 

portion of this hemisphere, so that it will become dangerous to our peace and safety. We question the wisdom of 

the proposition advanced by President Cleveland. As the matter stands to-day, however, there is but one course 

open to Congress, and that is to accept the advice of the President.” 

Atlanta 

ATLANTA, Ga., Dec. 18. —The Atlanta Constitution says the message is very strong throughout, 

and from first to last breathes the genuine American spirit. It strikes a note of patriotism that is not 

often heard in high places during these latter days, and for that reason it will fall on the ears of the 

people with a welcome sound. 

Baltimore. 

BALTIMORE, Dec. 18. —The American (Rep.) says: 

“It will receive the approval of the American people. It will warm their hearts and gratify their pride as no State 

paper has done during this Administration.” 

The Herald (Ind.) says: 

“It is a peculiarly able and lucid statement of the American position. No more positive or emphatic defense of 

the Monroe doctrine could have been expected or desired. For once England has met its match in the field of 

diplomacy.” 

The Sun (Dem.) says: 

“The Republican howlers for a ‘vigorous policy’ and for war on any terms and against anybody cannot but be 

disappointed at the awful turn President Cleveland has given to their bombastic war cry. The only political stock in 

trade left to the Republicans was their Jingo cry, and they hoped to ‘whoop things up’ with this and put the 

Administration of the Democratic Party in general in an unpopular attitude. But the transparent scheme has failed, 

142


and without committing himself or his part to anything further at present than the ascertainment of the facts, the 

President has completely turned the table on them.” 

BUFFALO, N.Y., Dec. 18.—The Courier says: 

Buffalo 

“The President’s message is firm and vigorous, but it is also calm and deliberate. At such a time hot words and 

intemperate harangues should be avoided.” 

The Express characterizes it as bold and patriotic. 

The Evening Post says: 

“The message promises to become the historic confirmation of the Monroe doctrine, and before the question is 

settled to establish once for all universal recognition of this American contribution of this American contribution of 

the law of nations.” 

The Enquirer says the message is a splendid utterance, and that “the President will be sustained in 

the position he has taken at all hazards and at all costs.” 

The Evening News says: “The President will be heartily supported by the American people of all 

ranks and persuasions.” 

Charleston 

CHARLESTON, S.C., Dec. 18.—The News and Courier to-day has a column editorial admiring 

the spirit, but criticising the lack of judgment of Mr. Cleveland’s message. The following opening 

sentences indicate the spirit of the editorial: 

“President Cleveland’s special message to Congress on the Venezuelan question must satisfy the most exacting 

and enthusiastic Jingoes. But it will make the judicious grieve. We have no criticism to make of the message itself, 

nor of Mr. Cleveland’s statement of the case. He has expressed himself with even more than his usual clearness and 

force, but it is to be hoped on every account that some satisfactory basis may yet be found for an honorable 

adjustment of the differences between the United States and Great Britain without resort to the last dread appeal of 

nations.” 

Chicago 

CHICAGO, Dec. 18.—The following are the comments of Chicago newspapers on the 

President’s special message: 

Inter Ocean, (Rep.): 

“The President’s special message relative to Venezuelan affairs is in a tone that will be pleasing to the country.” 

Record, (Ind.): 

“In substance the message is a dignified but peremptory declaration that the Monroe doctrine is sound 

international law, that the United States will abide by it, and that further aggressions in Venezuela will be met with 

143

19 – 20 December 1895 

resistance by every means within this Nation’s power. If Congress remains steadfast in support of the President’s 

policy, the effect of this message will be the final establishment of the Monroe doctrine beyond any nation’s power 

to dispute.” 

Cincinnati 

CINCINNATI, Dec. 18.—The Commercial Gazette (Rep.) says: 

“The message of yesterday will become one of the great historic papers at the Nation. Briefly it is an unreserved 

acceptance of the doctrine of President Monroe, and it expresses his willingness to go to the extreme lengths in 

support of the doctrine.” 

The Tribune (Rep.) says: 

“It will stand so long as this Nation stands as one of the greatest and most momentous utterances at an 

American president.” 

The Enquirer (Dem.) says: 

“President Cleveland’s message on the Venezuelan question leaves no room for criticism. It is an exhibition of 

the American backbone which every true American will applaud.” 

Cleveland 

CLEVELAND, Dec. 18.—The World (Rep.) says: 

“President Cleveland has given the people of the United States a genuine and agreeable surprise. In a dignified, 

patriotic, conservative, yet courageous temper he has accepted the challenge which Great Britain has laid down in its 

contemptuous commentaries on the Monroe doctrine.” 

The Press (Ind.) says: 

“Every patriotic American will have a higher opinion of Mr. Cleveland now that he has thrown dawn the 

gauntlet.” 

The Recorder (Ind.) says: 

“The message of President Cleveland sent to Congress yesterday is forcible and exactly to the point.” 

The Plain Dealer (Dem.) says: 

“There ought to be no partisan differences in the response to this appeal to the patriotism and self-respect of 

the American people.” 

The Leader (Rep.) says: 

“This means that John Bull must either fight or back down. Grover Cleveland is exactly right” 

144


Detroit 

DETROIT, Mich., Dec. 18.—The Journal (Rep.) says editorially: 

“There can be no further misunderstanding or doubt as to the position of this Government relative to the 

controversy between Venezuela and Great Britain. The Monroe doctrine is clearly involved; it will be defended at all 

hazards.” 

The Evening News (Ind.) says: 

“Our Government has declared in the most solemn manner how the Venezuelan dispute can be settled, and 

there can be no retreat. England will not be permitted to hold even the Schomburgk line without arbitration.” 

The Tribune (Rep.) says: 

“We stand pledged by President Cleveland’s message to investigate the merits of the dispute between Great 

Britain and Venezuela, with the support of sword and bayonet, if they are needed.” 

The Free Press (Dem.) says: 

“The fact seems to be that the Marquis of Salisbury and his advisers have made up their minds to insist upon 

the boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela which they, themselves, have marked out. If that is the case the 

consequences must, indeed, be momentous. They may involve us in a war.” 

Philadelphia 

PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 18.—The Record (Dem.) says editorially: 

“President Cleveland’s message is a strong and firm declaration. There is no jingoism in it, but there is such a 

courageous assertion of the Monroe doctrine as might have been expected from a Democratic Administration 

carefully following Democratic precedents.” 

The Ledger (Ind. Rep.) says: 

“President Cleveland’s message is clear, emphatic, and dignified. It will be heartily indorsed by every genuine 

American.” 

The Times (Dem.) says: 

“The President speaks for the Nation.” 

The Press (Rep.) says: 

“President Cleveland has at last taken a stand upon a capital question of foreign relations in which he will carry 

the cordial and unanimous approval of the American people.” 

The Inquirer (Rep.) says: 

145

19 – 20 December 1895 

“No one can call the President to account for not taking a vigorous stand regarding the British encroachments 

upon Venezuela.” 

Pittsburg 

PITTSBURG. Penn., Dec. 18.—The following editorial comments from to-day’s Pittsburg 

papers illustrate the feeling here about the President’s message of yesterday on the Venezuelan 

boundary dispute: 

Dispatch, (Ind.): 

“On the main question that the principle involved is fundamental to our own existence, and that it must be 

maintained at any cost, the President will have the necessary support of the Congress and the whole Nation.” 

Commercial Gazette, (Rep.): 

“The message defines the situation in terms not to be misunderstood. That these sentiments will be approved 

by the great majority of the American people is not to be doubted.” 

Post, (Dem.): 

“Great Britain refusing to arbitrate, we propose to arbitrate for ourselves, and .maintin the award made, no 

matter where it leads—to peace or to war.” 

Times, (Rep.): 

“Every loyal American must rejoice in President Cleveland’s firmness and determination.” 

The Leader (Ind.) commends the message as voicing the sentiment of the whole people. 

The Press, (Rep.): 

“It is not probable that the two greatest Christian powers of the world to-day are to be involved in actual 

hostilities. The firm and uncompromising attitude taken by President Cleveland is bound to give the Monroe 

doctrine that standing in international law which it demands.” 

The Chronicle Telegraph, (Rep.): 

The firmly worded message to Congress sent yesterday by Mr. Cleveland cannot help being influential in 

settling a contention of long standing. The President’s recommendations in connection herewith are wise, far 

removed from the spirit of jingoism or desire to precipitate war.” 

St. Louis 

ST. LOUIS, Dec. 18.—Local papers comment as follows upon the President’s special message: 

Republic, (Dem.): 

“The message is the most virile assertion possible of the Monroe doctrine. There is no jingoism in it, but pure 

Americanism.” 

146


Globe-Democrat, (Rep.): 

“The President grasps the Venezuelan situation with commendable vigor and courage.” 

Richmond 

RICHMOND, Va., Dec. 18.—The Dispatch says editorially this morning: 

“The special message of President Cleveland sent to Congress yesterday leaves not a shadow of doubt as to his 

position on the Venezuelan question. It seems to us that Congress is bound to vote the money that the President 

asks. If so, we hope and expect that he will appoint a commission of cool-headed and patriotic men, who will 

proceed cautiously and verify every statement that is made to them. Then if it is found that Great Britain is bent 

upon extending her domain upon this continent, and still persists in declining to submit the question to arbitration, 

this country will be committed to aid the Venezuelans, in defending their territory against British aggression. In 

other words, we shall then have war. 

“That war is a serious thing we need not tell the people of the South, the people of Richmond particularly. 

Nevertheless, whenever the country needs soldiers it will find that the South will not only furnish its share, but more 

than its share.” 

Rochester 

ROCHESTER, N.Y., Dec. 18—The Union and Advertiser says editorially: 

“President Cleveland’s message meets the fullest expectations of the country and elicits the warmest approval of 

the patriotic people and press of all parties and of no party.” 

San Francisco 

SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 18. – The San Francisco morning papers comment on President 

Cleveland’s utterances as follows: 

Call, (Rep.): 

“By his message of yesterday, President Cleveland assumes the rightful position of a President of the United 

States. He asserts the principles of true Americanism. He speaks the popular will in language not to be mistaken.” 

Chronicle, (Rep.): 

“The argument of the President is unanswerable. Let it be understood that the Government will not recede.” 

Examiner, (Dem.): 

“President Cleveland has taken precisely the stand in his Venezuelan message which Americans who are not 

jingoes but who are keenly alive to the honor, the interests, and the traditions of their country hoped he would 

take.” 

Savannah 

SAVANNAH, Ga., Dec. 18.—The Savannah Morning News says: 

“The President’s Venezuelan message meets the hearty approval of the people. They believe the Monroe 

doctrine should be upheld, and that it must be upheld now or forever abandoned. They are not anxious for war with 

147

19 – 20 December 1895 

Great Britain. They want peace with all the world, and they would willingly do all that could be done with honor to 

maintain it, but they prefer war, knowing full well what it means, rather than have peace on terms that would not be 

creditable to the Nation.” 

Syracuse 

SYRACUSE, N.Y., Dec. 18.—The Journal comments editorially on the President’s message: 

“Venezuela will secure her rights to the dispute, England will suffer no wrong, and there will be an end to 

attempted encroachments by foreign powers upon territory which rightfully comes under the protection of the 

Monroe doctrine, and the world will know once and for all time that the United States will maintain that doctrine at 

all hazards.” 

Utica 

UTICA. N. Y, Dec. 18.—The Utica Observer closes its editorial on the President’s message, and 

the situation with these words: 

“The President’s firm dignity and fearlessness, which denote strength and determination, will go far toward a 

peaceful settlement of the matter.” 


- 100 - 

CANADA GOES WITH ENGLAND 

Biased Comment on the President’s Venezuelan Message 

TORONTO, Ontario, Dec. 18.—The World says: “If the President is acting from what he 

considers patriotic motives alone, then his message is to be dealt with in a serious aspect. But if he is 

simply trying to boom himself for a third term his conduct will be discounted by the Republican 

Party even more rapidly than by the British Government. Before, therefore, expressing an opinion 

on what the document really means the world at large will require to know what the President’s 

aspirations are in regard to his successor. That can be learned by watching the political development 

within the United States during the next few days, rather than by regarding what the people of 

England and elsewhere may think of it.” 

The Ottawa Citizen (Government organ) says: “President Cleveland is apparently willing to run the 

risk of war with England in support of monstrous and unjustifiable claims for the purpose of 

appealing on the eve of an election contest to the baser elements of the population or the United 

States.” 

The Gazette concludes as follows: “President Cleveland makes no serious attempt to answer Lord 

Salisbury’s argument, but expands himself in vague and general phrases, more or less referring to the 

subject of disagreement. 

He then suggests at commission, and hints that the United States will go to war with England 

unless the latter accepts the results of the commission, an astounding piece of impertinence. Of 

course, if the Americans want war with England, then war it must be. A great crime for those who 

148


promote it, the enormity of which is made absolutely clear by the flimsiness of their pretended 

claims in equity and justice.” 

The Montreal Star, under the caption, “Why There Will Be No War,” says: “If the cheap fustian of 

politicians should appear likely to entice the over-busy American people unthinkingly into war, it will 

only be necessary to shake in their laces the pension charges which are still increasing, though the 

local ‘unpleasantness’ of the sixties is now thirty years below the horizon. They might feel equal to 

the task of getting together an army; they, especially the inland cities, might be willing to endure a 

bombardment of the seacoast towns; they might even face the possibility of the creation of a new 

batch of colonies; but the firmest nerve would shake when they thought of the pension payments 

that would grow bigger and bigger as the war passed further and further into the past. Congress may 

be valiantly willing to send the whole nation to the front in this Venezuelan dispute, but will it dare 

face the pension rolls of the future?” 

The Montreal Gazette says: “Lord Salisbury’s firm statement of his case shows that Great Britain 

will not be move from the course she has marked out for herself in defense of her subjects’ rights. 

President Cleveland’s position is a new one in the history of diplomacy. It is not warranted by 

international law. It is not backed by good sense. It is not even justified by that much-talked-of and 

little understood thing, the Monroe doctrine.” 

The Mail says: “To declare that the Monroe doctrine is an authority upon this continent is one 

thing; to exercise jurisdiction under it upon soil that is held to be British is another. Congress may 

well hesitate to take so serious a step. The commission, however, is a very good device, from Mr. 

Cleveland’s point of view, which is evidently that of the politician who is out for votes.” 


- 101 - 

HARSH TALK IN ENGLAND 

President Cleveland’s Attitude Criticised by Newspapers 

SAY BRITAIN CANNOT BE SCARED 

Opinions on the Controversy of the Paris and Berlin Journals—Comments 

of the American Press 

LONDON, Dec. 18.—The English newspapers all comment on President Cleveland’s message. 

The general tone is that England should not recede. The Globe says: 

“Mr. Cleveland and Mr. Olney have strained the friendship of the two countries almost to the 

point of breaking. 

“It is difficult to write calmly of the amazing claims which these gentlemen advance in the name 

of the United States, but we trust that the proposed commission will be politely but firmly requested 

to pursue their inquiries on the far side of the Schomburgk line.” 


“The claims set up by Mr. Cleveland and Mr. Olney are so exaggerated and their language is so 

offensive that it would cause no surprise if there should be a similar explosion of violence in Great 

Britain.” 

149

19 – 20 December 1895 

The Manchester Guardian, commenting on President Cleveland’s message to the American 

Congress yesterday, says: 

“We deeply regret the tone of Mr. Cleveland’s message. A grave struggle will now begin between 

moderate and extreme public opinion in America, the issue of which will have the gravest effect 

upon the peace of the world. The British Government, who are the exponents of Great Britain, will 

only do their duty if they strengthen the hands of the friends of peace in the United States by 

avoiding any expression of public animosity.” 

The Sheffield Telegraph, the organ of the steel-plate manufacturing district, says: 

“Mr. Cleveland’s language is admirably calculated to induce England to bid the Yankees to do 

their worst, which, as they would be the attacking power, seeing that they have neither army nor 

navy to speak of, would incline to the ridiculous. Still, if the United States really means fighting, 

Great Britain is not likely to evade the challenge. Certainly we wall not be turned from the plain path 

by threats.” 

The Pall Mall Gazette does not regard Mr. Cleveland’s communication to Congress as a serious 

message, but only an election address, which ought to bring him the solid vote of the concession 

mongers, who already see themselves washing out tons of gold on the Essequibo River. The Gazette 

advises Mr. Cleveland to go before the country immediately, before the people of America have time 

to study the Olney doctrine, an not give them a day to ask what he would think if England 

appointed a commission to delimit the frontiers of the United States and Mexico. 

The Westminster Gazette speaks of the horrors of fratricide within the Anglo-Saxon race and says: 

“We do not believe that war is possible.” 

Most of the newspapers print articles summing up the war strength of the United States. 

The St. James’s Gazette publishes a list of the British warships now in American waters, together 

with their dimensions, etc., which is followed by a list of the vessels composing the United States 

Navy, giving also their capacity, &c. 

The Westminster Gazette has an article showing the numerical strength of the United States Army 

and the strength, character and location of the country’s defenses, and The Pall Mall Gazette 

presents a map of the disputed frontiers, accompanied by an article thereon. 

The Daily News to-morrow will say that it was hardly to be expected that Congress would do 

otherwise than grant an appropriation for the proposed Venezuelan commission. 

“Mr. Cleveland’s plot,” The News will say, “was well laid and has achieved his immediate object. 

Probably he sees in the vista a third term as his reward. But we cannot believe he will permanently 

gain. It is not to the advantage of the Republicans to prolong the excitement. Thus party feeling, 

combined with the words of the wise, will make common sense prevail. If the message had been 

communicated to the Foreign Office it must have led to a rupture of diplomatic relations. As it is, it 

does not call for a reply.” 

The Daily News in an editorial will review past disputes between the United States and England, 

which for the moment looked serious enough, but in which, with sense and good temper, both sides 

came to an arrangement on peaceful and friendly terms. 

The Standard to-morrow will say it is apparent that the war fever in the United States is among 

politicians, and instances Mr. Chandler’s bill. It continues: 

“While the fit lasts we must expect to deal with grandiose talk and must not be surprised at the 

promulgation of the most ridiculous plans, but we have an abiding faith in the good sense of the 

American people and feel sure that when they come to review the facts calmly they will be prepared 

to admit that Mr. Cleveland has altogether overdone his part.” 

150


The paper discusses Mr. Olney’s dispatch, reasserts the strength of the English position, and 

concludes as follows: 

“We fail to find a shadow of excuse for an act of astounding and utterly unprovoked 

unfriendliness. Even if our case were less strong it would be startling, indeed shocking, to find the 

head of the American Republic plunging with so much levity into a position from which one side or 

the other must recede with some discredit and not without some humiliation; but that in the actual 

circumstances Mr. Cleveland should employ language recommending action that savors of a 

readiness to commit England and the United States to a fratricidal conflict seems to us little short of 

a grave crime.” 

The Chronicle to-morrow will say: 

“Had the controversy arisen between Great Britain and a European power it would by now have 

had consequences of the most serious character. But we and the United States are brethren, and 

family quarrels have often kindled a quick flame and ended in sudden tenderness. Therefore we do 

not and will not assume that President Cleveland’s message has produced an impasse. Above all, we 

will not contemplate the iniquity of a war between England and America. It is a thing that 

civilization would not envisage. It horrifies even cool or hostile observers. 

The Morning Past to-morrow will say that if the utterance of Secretary Olney and President 

Cleveland meant anything, the recall of Sir Julian Pauncefote, the British Ambassador to the United 

States, would be justified. The paper agrees with Mr. Cleveland in deprecating an appeal to arms, but 

says that “language of this kind makes it necessary to consider the chances of war.” 

The Daily Telegraph to-morrow will say: 

“Any serious discussion of the possibility of a war between Great Britain and the United States 

arising is ridiculous. It is a mischievous political dodge that ought to be regarded as a sign of 

incipient dementia. We are perfectly satisfied to rely upon the straightforward, high-bred simplicity 

of Lord Salisbury’s diplomacy and the good sense, widespread honesty, intelligence, and kindliness 

of the American people.” 

“England will begin to comprehend that America is no longer a field for English expansion. Mr. 

Cleveland appears to intend purposely to offend other powers, but it must be remembered that the 

elections in the United States are near.” 

The Lokal-Anzeiger says that the President’s message is purposely aggressive and will make a 

friendly solution of the question harder than ever. 

The Journal des Debats says that Mr. Cleveland’s language is somewhat immeasured, and 

undoubtedly places before the United States the alternative of fighting England, however monstrous 

that might be, or beating an inglorious retreat after yesterday’s bravery. The paper contests the right 

of the United States to intervene in the Venezuelan dispute. The Monroe doctrine, it says, cannot be 

considered by the rest of the world as an international act possessing any value as a law of nations. It 

is surprised at the proposal to send a commission to examine a disputed boundary in a foreign 

country. 

In conclusion The Debats says that, notwithstanding the unfavorable character of American 

political customs it refuses to believe that Mr. Cleveland would risk the fortune and honor of the 

Americans for mere political motives. It hopes and believes that the good sense of the Washington 

and London statesman will prevent an open rupture between Great Britain and the United States. 

La Liberte says: 

“Peoples of the same race and origin are accustomed to using strong language without fighting. 

Doubtless the differences will be settled pacifically. If Lord Salisbury should pick up the glove so 

151

19 – 20 December 1895 

arrogantly thrown down England would be able to organize a military expedition in a few hours, 

while the United States is unprepared. The complication affords matter for reflection on the 

disadvantages of colonial expansion.” 

The Temps has a two-column editorial on the message, which, it says is the gravest document 

signed by an American President since President Lincoln’s manifesto on the Trent Incident. The 

question is whether Mr. Cleveland is merely twisting the British lion’s tail or is acting seriously. At 

any rate his action is without diplomatic precedent unless such can be found in the annals of the 

arrogant Roman Senate. England refuses arbitration, while the United States Government declares 

that it will compel England to accept its judgment without appeal. It is impossible far an 

autonomous State, let alone a great power, to submit to such humiliation. Mr. Cleveland has been 

accused of restricting the meaning of the Monroe doctrine, but in fact he now stretches it beyond 

measure. 

Monroe never imagined such action. Mr. Cleveland’s claim of supreme authority over the whole 

hemisphere is a claim that is harmful to the protéges of the United States, as Europe and England 

will not bow to such a pretension. Arbitration has been greatly harmed in public opinion, yet war is 

impossible. The incident is one of the periodical outbursts that had a parallel in the Sackville-West 

affair. The paper says it wishes and expects that a pacific solution of the questions at issue will be 

found. 

In the Figaro to-morrow Jacques Saint-Cère will have an article under the caption “Monroe est 

Mon Rot” in which he will contend that the Monroe doctrine is not a principle of international law. 

If the Americans, he says, hold to a doctrine forbidding Europe to interfere in American affairs, why 

do they interfere in European questions? 

England may be wrong or right, but the principle involved is of world-wide interest. France has a 

similar difficulty with Brazil. It is impossible to admit a principle which would prevent settling 

directly with the latter. 

The République Française, the Presse, and the Soir, while they do not indorse President Cleveland’s 

interpretation of the Monroe doctrine, gloat over England’s dilemma. “England cannot count on 

any support.” 

The Freisinnige Zeitung says President Cleveland’s aggressive tone is hardly credible. It seems to 

serious politicians like playing with fire and do not know how to be prudent. The Freisinnige Zeitung 

concludes by expressing the hope that such a trifle as the dispute between Great Britain and the 

United States in relation to the Venezuela-Guiana boundary will not lead to war between the 

countries. 

The Cologne Gazette, discussing President Cleveland’s message to the American Congress, says: 

“Against pretensions of this kind all of the European States will stand by England, for it is a 

question to be decided once and for all, whether unbridled claims of the United States shall be 

recognized or European civilization subordinated to North American civilization on the American 

Continent. Great Britain has the fullest moral and material right to persist defiantly in a conflict so 

passionately initiated.” 

The Gaulois says that the consequences of a war between the United States and England are 

altogether too great to admit that they are possible. The writer contrasts the position of an American 

President empowered to invoke the country to war with that of the President of France, who is 

under the restraint of the Chambers. 

VIENNA, Dec. 18.—The Neue Freie Presse says that the indignation expressed in England over 

President Cleveland’s message in regard to the Venezuelan controversy is abundantly justified. 

152



- 102 - 

POLITICS AND PATRIOTISM 

It is not surprising that the London papers should attribute the course of the American 

Government in the Venezuela matter to partisan or personal ambition. They do not know much 

about America and her public men at best. They have had a few conspicuous instances in the past of 

idle threats used to excite popular passion. It is natural and pleasant to think that an opponent is 

playing a mean and ignoble part, and easy to say so, even when you do not wholly believe it. The 

utterances of the Executive of the United States arouse less perturbation in English minds if they 

can be dismissed as the declamation of a “lion’s tail twister,” and it is tempting to dispose of them in 

that way even if they have to be considered with greater gravity later on. Moreover, the habit of the 

English journalist is to treat with more or less conscious sense of superiority any criticism of the 

English Government, which he usually believes is positively the only one in the world that tries to 

base its conduct on moral principles. He thinks that he knows that the English record in 

Venezuela—of which he probably learned for the first time in Lord Salisbury’s dispatch to Sir Julian 

Pauncefote—is “stainless,” and he is practically incapable, on short notice, of conceiving that any 

one should question it from good motives. When he says that Mr. Cleveland is bidding for a third 

term he has found an explanation that for the time explains and that will be accepted with eagerness 

by his own readers. It is not worth while to blame him very harshly, for in the long run he is apt to 

show himself a reasonable person, and we can afford to wait. 

But it is surprising, and, to speak plainly, it is disgusting, to find Mr. Cleveland accused of 

abusing his great trust in order to secure his renomination to the Presidency when such accusation 

comes from an American journal, and especially when it comes from a journal that daily proclaims 

its unswerving adherence to a higher and purer standard than any other know in the daily press. To 

any one reasonably familiar with the history and present condition of the politics of this country it 

would be plain that Mr. Cleveland, were he guided by ambition, would not seek to attain its object 

by what his accusers are sure is pure bullying of a friendly and powerful Government. No man who 

has held the Presidential office twice and three times has been a candidate for the Presidency would 

make so obvious a blunder as that. Particularly would such a blunder be impossible to a man who 

had on two successive occasions defeated before the people candidates who expressly appealed to 

the sentiment he is now charged with flattering. If we concede, for the moment, that Mr. Cleveland 

has suddenly become base enough to play such a part, he must also have become a rash, 

unreflecting, blind, and stupid fool. That may be the character in which he now appears to those 

who attribute to him a vile motive for a serious and even momentous act of public policy. But the 

man who believes that that is Mr. Cleveland’s real character compels us to think that for the time it 

is his own character. 

Surely, if ever there was a public man from the days of Washington to the President who has 

won and deserved the confidence of the Nation in his unselfish devotion to duty as he sees it, it is 

Mr. Cleveland. His record is one long proof of it. We need refer to but two instances. At the close of 

his first term he deliberately and consciously endangered his own re-election by his unqualified 

declaration of fidelity to tariff reform, believing at the time that the chances of securing then the 

153

19 – 20 December 1895 

approval which he was confident the Nation would ultimately give that reform were very slight. 

Again, on the eve of the canvass of 1892, against the judgment of many politicians of note in his 

party, he declared his opposition to free silver, before which the “leaders” of both parties were 

trembling. A man of Mr. Cleveland’s experience who is capable of such decisive acts as these is not 

capable of prostituting his high office to curry favor with the unthinking. We cannot disregard all the 

evidence of a career known of the whole country, a career marked by unusual candor and 

fearlessness in the expression of opinion and motive, and one pursued in the fierce light of political 

contention as bitter and cruel as our history has ever known. But we must disregard this evidence 

before we can justify or excuse the contemptible aspersions cast upon the President. 


- 103 - 

PARTISANSHIP LAID ASIDE 

All Members of Congress Cordially Sustain the President 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 18.—The President has reason to be gratified with the spirit manifested 

by the Senate since his Venezuela message was received. 

Although there are a few Senators who regard his ringing declarations with partisan eyes, the 

majority indorses all that he said, and stands ready to support his policy. The jingo” Senators, like 

Lodge, Frye, and Chandler, realize that the message completely overshadows their previous 

utterances, but they are “game,” and thus far have not uttered any discordant notes. Mr. Chandler, 

on the contrary, has come forward with a proposition to put the country in possession of muchneeded 

large and small arms. 

He introduced in the Senate to-day a bill calling for the appropriation of $100,000,000 to be used 

for the betterment of our National defenses. 

Senator Chandler’s Plan 

Senator Chandler’s bill directs the President to strengthen the military force of the United States 

by adding 1,000,000 infantry rifles, 1,000 guns for field artillery, and not exceeding 5,000 heavy guns 

for fortifications. The sum of $100,000,000 is made immediately available far the purpose of the 

proposed armament. The same measure was introduced in the House. 

Senator Gallinger also introduced a bill instructing the Secretary of War to negotiate and contract 

for the purchase from Genevieve G. Kennon, widow of Beverly Kennon of the letters patent 

granted to him for the invention of a counterpoise battery for the protection of cannon in coast and 

harbor defenses. 

Mr. Chandler Expects No Opposition 

Mr. Chandler said to a correspondent of The New-York Times this afternoon, that his bill would 

probably become a law. 

154


We have devoted much of our time and money in the last few years to the upbuilding of the 

naval establishment,” he said, “and the army has been neglected. What we need in an emergency like 

that which now confronts us is plenty of modern guns for the soldiers who may be called into the 

field and heavy cannon for sea coast defenses. Our navy is able to take care of itself, and there is 

always the prospect of a foreign alliance which would offset our present deficiencies in the way of 

warships. 

“Our first duty is to put our seacoast in shape for adequate defense and to provide means for 

arming a million men. The moral effect upon Great Britain of the passage of this bill would be very 

salutary. There unquestionably is a strong sentiment in favor of it.” 

Mr. Chandler’s bill was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs, at whose hands it will 

receive early consideration. There is little likelihood that it will be reported before the beginning of 

the holiday recess. 

Hitt’s Resolution Delayed 

There was considerable disappointment expressed over the failure of the Senate to receive the 

resolution adopted by the House appropriating $100,000 to carry out the President’s 

recommendations regarding the appointment of a commission to inquire into the Venezuelan 

question. Under the law passed in the last session, such resolutions are required to be printed, and it 

was impossible for the printer to supply the printed copy before the Senate adjourned. 

There is some difference of opinion in the Senate as to the exact method of dealing with the 

proposition for a commission, but there is apparently no danger of a controversy as to the general 

proposition. Some Senators want to go through the form of consideration of the measure by a 

committee, with the view of making some provisions not included in the measure as passed by the 

House. 

The thing they particularly want is to provide a limit of time within which the commission must 

report. The objection made by a good many Senators to this is that the time taken for these 

formalities will defer the appointment of the commission and cause the delay which all profess to be 

anxious to avoid. 

Commission Will Report Promptly 

Persons who have talked with Mr. Cleveland on the subject are convinced that he desires a very 

early report from the commission, and will so indicate to members on their appointment. 

The Senators who suggest deliberation would have the Committee on Foreign Relations 

completed at once and the matter referred to it for a report. This contemplates a possible delay of 

action by the Senate proper until after the holidays, and therefore it is not popular. A considerable 

number of Senators on both sides of the Chamber say that there can be no holiday adjournment 

until after the House resolution has been acted on by the Senate, and that if the matter shall go to 

the committee it must be with the understanding that the report be made in time for action before 

the holidays. 

Every suggestion of delay or hesitation on the part of any one appears to meet with general 

disfavor. 

Mr. Hitt explains that his failure to provide a time within which the report of the commission 

shall be made was because he deemed it unnecessary. He was satisfied that the report would be 

155

19 – 20 December 1895 

made as soon as possible. There does not appear to be any doubt that the resolution will receive the 

indorsement of the Senate. 

It is taken for granted that Mr. Cleveland will lose no time in naming the members of the 

commission. The opinion was expressed at the Capitol to-day that a commission of active men 

could examine the necessary data and come to a conclusion in comparatively short time. 

Conservative members of the Senate say that the time occupied by the commission in its 

investigation ought to be employed in strengthening our naval and military departments. 

England Must Retract or Fight 

Most of the Senators appreciate the gravity or the situation. 

“Unless Great Britain shall back down the only result of the attitude of this country can be war, 

unless the United States commission shall decide that Great Britain is right,” said a Democratic 

Senator this afternoon. 

“It is impossible to get around this fact. It must he conceded that this country is not in a fit 

condition to issue a manifesto to a first-class power like Great Britain. There is much to be done to 

get the army and navy in fighting condition, and two or three months will hardly suffice to bring the 

work up to satisfactory proportions. Much may be done, however in that direction in that limited 

time. 

“I hope that the Chandler bill or one similar to it will become a law very soon, and that the gun 

factories of the country will be run to their fullest capacity. England arrogates to herself all the 

patriotism in the world, and does not think it possible for Americans to turn their eyes from 

business long enough to consider the honor of their country. 

“The spectacle of gun factories and shipyards working overtime would be an object lesson which 

would open the eyes of John Bull to the seriousness of the controversy in which he is now engaged. 

I am glad to see that the sentiment of the country is with the President, and I am confident that the 

country will now take up the question of its defenses in a spirit that will be productive of much 

good.” 

Senator Pettigrew takes the view that Great Britain will not fight with the United States. He is 

the representative in the Senate of that inconsiderable element which deprecates any movement 

which savors of war. “There is no danger of England going to war with us over any question,” he 

said to a correspondent of The New-York Times. 

“She is the Shylock of the world, and for years has been living on the accumulations of the 

tolling masses of the world. Her exports in the last few years have fallen off $84,000,000, while her 

imports are constantly increasing. No country whose yearly imports exceed its exports by 

$600,000,000 may be expected to go to war with a powerful nation. It is Great Britain’s mission on 

earth to accumulate all she can and bullyrag weaker nations. She has everything to lose and nothing 

to gain by going to war with this country. 

“Despite her present aggressive attitude, she will find a loophole to retreat. In my opinion there 

is no necessity for any warlike preparations on the part of the United States, for England will not 

fight us.” 

Revenue Will Be Voted 

This view is shared by only a few members of the upper chamber. 

156


The question of revenue has arisen in connection with the proposed arming of the country, but 

it is dismissed with the assertion that long term, short interest bonds will be cheerfully voted. 

One gratifying sign to those who are jealous of their country’s honor is the practical 

disappearance in both houses of partisan spirit. There are, of course, a few men in each branch who 

cannot rise above the level of partisan politics, but these are apt to be swept out of sight in the tide 

of patriotism which now is rising so rapidly. 

Representatives Act As One 

There was a large audience in the gallery of the House this morning in expectation of a long and 

interesting debate on the President’s special message on Venezuela. 

The visitors were not altogether disappointed but the debate was shorter and less spirited than 

had been hoped for. Mr. Crisp and Mr. Hitt both attempted to obtain recognition from the Speaker 

at the same time. Speaker Reed naturally and perhaps properly, from a party standpoint, saw Mr. 

Hitt and gave him recognition. 

The veteran from Illinois, who had undoubtedly consulted with the Speaker before the House 

met, sent up for immediate consideration a bill providing for the appointment of a commission to 

investigate the Venezuela boundary question and make a report, and appropriating $100,000 to 

defray the expenses of the commission authorized by the bill. 

If the Speaker had been a Democrat instead of a Republican, it is probable that Capt. Boutelle 

would have insisted upon being called to order and disciplined by being ordered into his seat. He 

was disposed to be captious, but did not go so far in his manifestation of uneasiness and 

dissatisfaction as to object, although he was invited to do so by Mr. Reed. 

Mr. Crisp did not oppose the prompt disposition of the immature and hastily constructed Hitt 

bill, which was more useful as a test of the feeling toward the Administration than it was as 

promising a conclusion to the boundary dispute. 

Mr. Hitt’s Bill Presented 

Immediately after the reading of the journal, Mr. Hitt (Rep. Ill.) asked unanimous consent for the 

present consideration of a bill which he sent to the desk and had read. It appropriated $100,000 for 

the payment of the expenses of the commission suggested by President Cleveland in his message 

yesterday for the purpose of determining the true divisional line between Venezuela and British 

Guiana. The reading of the bill was followed by applause. 

Mr. Boutelle (Rep., Me.) asked if it were the intention to pass the bill without debate. 

Mr. Hitt stated that that was his desire. 

Mr. Boutelle said that he hoped that in view of the vast importance and serious gravity of the 

consequences that might grow out of the passage the bill, the House would proceed in a decorous 

and deliberate manner in the consideration of this matter. 

Mr. Boutelle said that he had been charged with being a jingo, whatever that might be, and he 

did not think it was necessary for him to state wherever he was known that, should Congress and 

the President find themselves in a position where they felt it necessary to call the country to arms, he 

would not be found lagging behind. The press this morning, he said, brought to the House notice 

that in the consideration of this affair the members should take counsel of their calmness and 

deliberation. 

157

19 – 20 December 1895 

The eyes of all the people, he said, were upon the House and Senate this day, and to this matter 

the members ought to give as much consideration as would be devoted to an appropriation of a few 

thousand dollars. He hoped that the bill would be sent to a committee in the regular way to be 

thoroughly digested there and then reported to the House. 

Speaker Reed—Does the gentleman object? 

Mr. Boutelle—I have not objected. I simply suggested the hope that the bill might be sent to the 

committee. 

The Speaker—Is there objection to the immediate consideration of the bill? [A pause.] The Chair 

hears none. 

Speaks for the Measure 

Mr. Hitt followed in a speech in support of the bill. He said: 

Mr. Speaker, appreciating all that was said by the gentleman who has just taken his seat and 

the patriotic impulse that led him to make his remarks, I desire to say only a word in explanation 

of the bill and its purpose, which. I trust, will satisfy everyone in this House – and I say it 

without mentioning this side of the House or that side. I hope we have not two sides when it 

comes to a question of this kind. 

The President of the United States yesterday sent a message to this House. After a general 

discussion in that message of doctrines, policies and National interests there is a request made 

directly by the executive of this House for action to aid in the exercise of his executive functions. 

It is purely an executive function to ascertain all the facts relating to any question of negotiation 

with a foreign country. 

The gravity of the case is such that the President suggests a mode of determining a cardinal 

question in the controversy, and he asks us to co-operate with him by enabling him to appoint 

three men to examine the records and evidences of the facts involved. In this contention 

between the two great Governments the first fact for us to remember as patriotic Americans is 

that the success of our country in its contention depends above all upon our presenting a united 

front, so that all Americans shall appear to be one, and that our Government shall speak for all 

the people of the United States. 

And the prompt response of the people’s representatives here in according this small sum of 

money to pay the expenses of an investigation which the President says shall be carefully and 

judicially made and with the least delay possible—a suggestion which I am sure was made in 

good faith and will be so carried out by an American President—we answering in that spirit 

which becomes Americans, and promptly granting the appropriation, the spectacle will be 

presented of Republic that is one man. 

In negotiations of this character any officer charged with the duty or representing this 

Government is hampered and his opponent is encouraged by every word of dissent that comes 

from his home. Every criticism behind the officer’s back puts him at a disadvantage, and 

hesitation by this Congress, the postponing of this simple question of an appropriation to aid the 

President in performing an executive function, would be construed by the British press and the 

British Government as evidence that the people of the United States were not behind the 

President; that his action in the matter had some relation to party tactics, and that he did not 

speak the voice of the American people. 

158


Let us answer and do our duty, all of us, now. We shall have long days in which to discuss 

the Monroe doctrine and the exact words in which it should be formulated, if we do no agree 

with the precise terms in which in which Mr. Olney or the President has put it. But on this 

matter discussion only confuses, and gives aid and comfort to those across the sea. Any 

disclosure of dissent here—and at bottom there really is none—any appearance of dissent would 

not aid, but would hamper those who are clothed by the Constitution with this great duty. I 

hope, therefore, that the House will proceed to pass the bill without delay. I have made these 

few remarks, not from any desire for debate, but merely as a suggestion by way of guidance to 

the action which I believe we ought to take and in which I hope all will concur. And now, Mr. 

Speaker, unless there is some considerable body of gentlemen here who desire discussion I will 

move the previous question. 

Mr. Crisp, the ex-Speaker, said: 

Indorsed by Mr. Crisp 

Together with all on this side of the House, I rejoice that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 

Hitt) has been recognized to ask consideration of the bill which has just been read at the Clerk’s 

desk. It does seem to me that there can be no division in this House as to the propriety of the 

immediate passage of that bill. For a great many years there has been a controversy as to the 

divisional line between the Republic of Venezuela and British Guiana. We respectfully invited 

Great Britain to submit the controversy between that Government and the Republic of 

Venezuela to arbitration. Great Britain has declined arbitration. Now what are we to do? If the 

American people have a fixed opinion upon any question, it is the opinion that no European 

country shall be permitted to acquire territory on the American Continent by force. Now, the 

question is, what are we to do? 

Inasmuch as Great Britain has declined arbitration of this controversy, we are bound to 

ascertain, and to ascertain speedily, on which side lies the right, and that is the object of the 

President’s message and of this bill. If we to have the assistance of Great Britain in ascertaining 

the facts by means of arbitration, then we must ascertain them for ourselves, and we ought to do 

it at once. The suggestion of my friend from Maine (Mr. Boutelle) to wait until a committee is 

appointed means to wait three weeks, while we should at once authorize the appointment of this 

commission and the payment of its expenses, so that it may proceed, as I have just said, to 

ascertain where the right is; and every one may rest assured that when we ascertain where the 

right is, we have the courage and the manhood to maintain it. 

The previous question was then ordered without a dissenting vote and the bill read a third time 

and passed unanimously. 

Mr. Dingley offered a concurrent resolution providing a holiday recess extending from Friday, 

Dec. 20, to Friday, Jan. 3, 1896. 

Mr. Meredith (Dem., Va.)—Before that resolution is passed I would like to have some 

gentleman on the other side introduce a bill to repeal the law forbidding old Confederates from 

serving in the army or navy. I think this would be a good time. 

The resolution was passed, and then at 12:40, on motion from Mr. Dingley, the House 

adjourned until Friday. 

159

19 – 20 December 1895 

Senator Morgan is Pleased 

Senator Morgan, (Dem., Ala.)—The present Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, 

expresses his views on the President’s message as follows: 

“I look upon the President’s message as a thoughtful, able, carefully prepared, and vigorous 

document. It is time that we should have an utterance of this character, and Americans, who always 

like a straightforward declaration, will support all that the President has said on this subject so 

fraught with vital consequences for the people of this country. 

“The message will meet with the approval of Congress, and will teach England that she has gone 

as far as she dare in this matter. The whole subject will be up soon for discussion in the Senate, and 

I predict there will be nothing uncertain about the sentiments that will be expressed on the floors of 

the two houses of Congress. That I deem the situation one of the most vital importance is suggested 

by my motion yesterday granting the Committee on Foreign Relations the authority to sit during the 

recess of Congress.” 

John W. Foster’s Views 

John W. Foster, ex-Secretary of State, an acknowledged authority upon the subject of 

international law, cordially approves and supports the position taken by President Cleveland and 

Secretary Olney upon the meaning and scope of the Monroe doctrine, as laid down in he President’s 

message delivered to Congress yesterday, and in the dispatch to Lord Salisbury written by the 

Secretary last Summer. He was asked for an expression of opinion upon the situation, and in 

response said: 

“I recognize the President’s exposition of the Monroe doctrine as a correct statement in its 

application to the present controversy with Great Britain, and I deem it the duty of every citizen of 

the United States to support him in his attitude. I do not, however, regard his course as necessarily 

leading to war. 

“I have confidence that the two English-speaking people of the world will be able to find a 

peaceful method of adjusting the question honorable alike to both.” 


- 104 - 

JULES SIMON EXPECTS NO WAR 

Holds that the Monroe Doctrine Is Not Applicable 

PARIS, Dec. 18.—In an interview to-day M. Jules Simon* said that, notwithstanding his 

sympathies with a sister republic of France, he could not see how the Monroe doctrine was 

applicable in the Venezuelan controversy. 

Replying to a suggestion that President Cleveland’s action was a political manoeuvre, he said that 

be thought that such a motive for the course followed by Mr. Cleveland would be unworthy of the 

President and degrading to the Nation. 

160


He was convinced, he added, that a peaceful solution of the question would he found that would 

be honorable to both countries. 


* French statesman and philosopher 

- 105 - 

IT WAS MR. CLEVELAND’S WORK 

The Venezuelan Message Was Written by the President Himself 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 18.—There has been an absurd story it circulation in connection with 

the Venezuelan message, to the effect that Mr. Cleveland was not the author of that document, and 

that his signature was the only thing contributed by the Chief Executive The reputed author was 

Secretary Olney. 

As a matter of fact Mr. Olney did not write the message. It was entirely the work of the 

President, and appears as originally written, with the exception of a few changes in expression. The 

message was written on unruled, common, white paper, of note size, apparently torn from a 

convenient block. Each page is finely written in the running and familiar chirography of the 

President. There are fifteen pages in all. The President made few alterations, the composition being 

almost without interlineations. 

It is understood that Secretary Olney did prepare a form of message, as is usual in such instances 

for it is customary for the Secretary of State to outline, as a sort of brief, the documents which 

appear as part of such a message as the Venezuelan document. Often the Secretary’s contribution 

serves as the basis of the Executive communication, and it did so in the present instance, but the 

message which was published this morning, and which has aroused so much patriotic indorsement, 

is the work of Mr. Cleveland, and every word was written by him personally. 


- 106 - 

SURPRISING INCREASE IN TERRITORY 

British Claims in Guiana Nearly Doubled In One Year 

One phase of the history of Great Britain’s contested claims in Venezuela may be traced in 

interesting fashion in the pages of the “Statesman’s Year Book,” a publication whose authority is 

recognized the world over. It has for many years been edited by J. Scott Keltie, Librarian of the 

Royal Geographical Society, and it is revised after official returns. From 1869 to 1885 inclusive the 

“Statesman’s Year Book” gives the area of British Guiana at 76,000 square miles. In the issue of 1886 

this area in the most surprising fashion jumped up to 109,000 square miles. 

161

19 – 20 December 1895 

The Hon. William Ewart Gladstone was at that time Prime Minister of Great Britain, the Earl of 

Rosebery was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and Earl Granville Secretary of State for the 

Colonies. The Gladstone Government came into power after the general election of 1880, and was 

restored to office as a result of the election in 1886. There was a short interregnum from June 24, 

1885, until Feb. 6, 1886, during which period the Marquis of Salisbury assumed the reins of 

government, but it was during the first of these Gladstone administrations that the Granville 

boundary line between Venezuela and British Guiana was promulgated, whereby the British 

Government increased its possessions in British Guiana from 76,000 square miles to 109,000 square 

miles by alleged encroachments on Venezuelan territory. 


- 107 - 

THINKS ENGLAND IS RIGHT 

Prof. Moore, ex-Assistant Secretary of State, Talks of the Message 

FLUSHING, L. I., Dec. 18.—Prof. John Bassett Moore of Columbia College, who was Assistant 

Secretary of State under James G. Blaine, who is a recognized authority on international law, and 

who has issued recently several pamphlets on the Monroe doctrine, said to-day that he believed 

England’s position in regard to the boundary of Venezuela was the right one. 

England, he said, seized the territory in dispute under the right by which unoccupied land may 

be claimed, and made it valuable. There is an unclaimed strip of land on the other side of Venezuela 

in every respect as valuable as that in dispute. England. Prof. Moore said, has twice established a 

boundary line, and in every way attempted to act fairly. 

The sentiment aroused in America, he declared, is an almost insane one. There seems to be no 

reason on the part of England to war with America, he said, yet to maintain her self-respect she may 

be forced to it. Our naval men, he stated, all agree that we are in no position to cope with England 

upon the waters. Why America should forsake alliance with the Anglo-Saxons, her own kindred, and 

take up with those of Spanish descent seems to him incomprehensible. The Spanish are a 

treacherous race, unsettled and wavering, he said. The South American republics are continually 

changing their position, and if the United States intends to become their champion it will keep the 

country continually involved in diplomatic controversy with European countries. Prof. Moore says 

he is preparing a paper on the Venezuelan question. 

President Cleveland’s vigorous utterances are approved by men of all political factions. 


- 108 - 

THE PRESIDENT’S COURSE UPHELD 

Members of Congress Indorse the Message In Regard to 

162


Venezuela’s Boundary Dispute 

REVENUES FORTHCOMING IN THE EVENT OF WAR 

Senator Chandler Proposes to at Once Expend One Hundred Millions of Dollars to Defend 

the Coast—The House Adopts it Resolution to Provide for the Commission Suggested by 

President Cleveland—Partisanship for Once Forgotten 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 18.—The President did not have to go to the Capitol to-day to ascertain 

how his message of yesterday had impressed the members of Congress, and the general public. 

Dispatches poured into the White House from every part of the land weighted with the approval of 

men in public and private life. Senators and Representatives called upon him in great numbers to 

commend in person the stand he had taken in asserting anew the traditional policy of this 

Government. Every one of these official visitors offered at once, and in the most cordial manner, 

support of any effort to maintain the American position taken. 

Almost without exception the metropolitan newspapers were in accord with the general feeling 

expressed by the White House visitors. The bellicose spirit manifested by the fragments of London 

editorials had been read and their tone was understood, but the knowledge that England was 

substantially a unit in denouncing our contention did not dash the enthusiasm of those who 

regarded the President as right and as having expressed the feeling of the people he was chosen to 

represent at the head of the Government. 

The approval of the President is not partisan. The words of indorsement uttered by Republicans 

are as straightforward and as unmistakable as those expressed by Democrats. In only a few 

instances, notably those of Senators Gray and Hill, have there been Democratic declinations to 

comment upon the President’s message. Senator Gray’s silence is construed to indicate disapproval 

of the President’s position, and it must be stated in fairness to Senator Hill that the declination of 

the New-York Senator to speak is not a reluctance to aggravate the British authorities, but a feeling 

that there is something in the message that may be in time construed to qualify its ringing reiteration 

of the Monroe doctrine. He intends to speak to the public when he has anything to say. 

The President Heartily Indorsed 

Some comments upon the message and the effect it has had upon the relations of the President 

with the leading men of his party in Washington have been sent out from this city to-day, and if read 

by any considerable number of persons they are apt to have a misleading influence. These comments 

give the idea that the message has severed from him the men who have been his friends, and has not 

increased the confidence of his former admirers. 

It would be difficult, it not impossible, to prove this. In the effort to find critics of the President 

in the ranks of the Republicans, reports are made of covert sneers at him, and references are made 

to alleged comparisons of his courage in asserting the Monroe doctrine with the indifference 

manifested toward slaughtered Armenians. The comparisons are as absurd at they are forced and 

inadmissible. This talk is palpably an effort to find what is regarded by a select few as a “jingo” 

character in the message of the President. If such comments as those suggested have been made 

they have been so “covert” that they have been heard only by the man who wrote them, and, at all 

events, they were so carefully expressed that but one correspondent has enjoyed the privilege of 

hearing them, and he has made the most of an opportunity to enjoy what he imagined, perhaps, was 

a monopoly. 

163

19 – 20 December 1895 

No One Attacks the President 

It ought to be observed that the comments are entirely impersonal; that not one of the men who 

are referred to as thinking that the President’s course has “thrown him into the hands of his 

enemies” has been considered of sufficient importance to permit the use of his name in the 

repetition of his criticisms, and there is anonymous authority only for the intimation that the 

President has taken the stand that meets with almost unanimous approval merely in pursuance of a 

campaign policy. 

That this feeling did not exist in the House at noon to-day will be apparent to any one who will 

take the trouble to read the report of the proceedings in that body, which at once took up the bill 

offered by Mr. Hitt to enable the President to appoint a boundary commission, with the liberty to 

use $100,000 to pay its expenses. This sudden action on the part of the man who is to be the 

Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee cut out Mr. Crisp, who had in contemplation the offer 

of a similar proposition. 

An Imperfect Bill 

With Mr. Reed to watch out for Mr. Hitt, and with the power to overlook Mr. Crisp, even if the 

Democratic leader were really entitled first to the floor, the opportunity was assured to the 

Republicans. The bill went through after a slight interruption by Capt. Boutelle, whom the Speaker 

unsuccessfully endeavored to put in the position of objecting to its immediate consideration, which 

the doughty warrior did not desire to do. The bill went through without so much as one opposing 

voice. 

Now that the bill has been approved by the House, it in seen to be imperfect. That may have 

been the intention of the introducer, who neglected to say whether the commission should consist 

of one man or fifteen men. The size and character of the appointments are left entirely to the 

discretion of the President, and there is no limit of time in which the report of the commission is to 

be made to the President and the Congress. The Senate will undoubtedly amend the bill in these 

particulars, and having prescribed the number of commissioners to serve for the investigation, will 

also fix a limit of time in which they shall be called upon to complete their work. However amended, 

the bill must go back to the House for its consideration as amended, so that it looks as if the 

commission might not be authorized until after the holiday recess. 

English Opinion Disregarded 

The expressions quoted from the British papers this morning are not weighing very heavily 

against the American argument. Most at them are taken as the official and organic utterances of 

Tory sheets, and all of them seem to reveal an ignorance of the dispute that is common with the 

British people. The later dispatches from London confirm this opinion, for it is reported that the 

people in London do not know what the newspaper dispute is all about. But it is assumed that even 

the densest of Britons will be able to comprehend the fact that the managers of the Tory 

Administration have refused to submit to arbitration a case that the parties on one side are willing 

shall go to an arbitrator, while the other side is manifesting a preference for war rather than a 

settlement of the controversy by peaceable means. Arbitration could be accepted without cost to the 

people or loss of self-respect. War must impose upon Great Britain and the United States heavy 

164


burdens of taxation, and possibly great loss of life and material. When that is accomplished it is not 

at all certain that Great Britain will have anything to show for its bluster, loss of life, and refusal to 

resort to the inexpensive and reasonable proposition to arbitrate. 

A party that undertakes to carry out a policy of resistance to so reasonable a proposition as that 

made by Secretary Olney and insisted upon by the President would not long remain popular in the 

United States, and it is believed that the people of Great Britain are likely to be convinced of the 

correctness of our position if they devote any time to investigation of the subject. 

Bloodshed Not Expected 

With all the vigorously defiant talk there is an undercurrent of opinion that the trouble will come 

to an end without bloodshed. Everybody cannot take just the view that is entertained by the younger 

men of the army and the navy. To these trained men of war the prospect of a collision between 

England and the United States offers so many chances of achievement in their profession that they 

will, no doubt, see with regret the diplomatic settlement of the controversy. Men who consider the 

prospects of war lightly, and talk about its opportunities for fame and glory cheerfully, are apt to be 

impatient of the arguments that represent the superior importance of maintaining amicable relations 

with the whole world and preventing the interruption of our business with other nations. 

But, with some of those who are most averse to war, the prospect of sounding the willingness of 

the country to test its readiness for self-defense and even aggressive operations is considered a 

wholesome one. 

The freedom from partisanship of the approval of the President was expressed by a Republican, 

who said of the leading editorial in The Times of to-day that it expressed his opinion of the message 

better than he had held it himself. 

Partisanship Abandoned 

“The President,” he said, “has made a declaration which is entitled to and which will receive the 

support of every American, of whatever party.” 

It is understood that the Hitt bill will be amended in the Senate so as to provide for the 

appointment of two members of the Venezuela commission by the Senate, two by the House, and 

two by the President. The expectation is that it will consist of three Democrats and three 

Republicans, and that the men selected will be of such character as to commend them to the support 

of both parties. 


- 109 - 

THE FINANCIAL MARKETS 

An Advancing Market Checked by the Venezuelan Incident 

INTERNATIONAL STOCKS FREELY SOLD 

Other Issues Decline in Sympathy— Industrials Also Lower—Exchange 

165

19 – 20 December 1895 

Rates Firm—Call Money Higher 

Tuesday—P. M. 

President Cleveland’s message to Congress on the Venezuelan matter reached Wall Street when 

the market was showing considerable strength, operators having been liberal buyers throughout the 

morning. It was several minutes before the full import of the matter impressed itself, during which 

there was a temporary lull in business. Then fractions began to fall with rapidity from stocks having 

an international market, and it was not long before the whole list was moving downward. Business 

was over for the day in London when the news came, so there was really no selling for the foreign 

account. But it was evident that local operators believed that American stocks would be thrown over 

by the foreigners at the first opportunity, and it was equally evident that they did not intend to make 

the market attractive for the expected liquidation. Louisville and Nashville dropped 2 points; Denver 

preferred 1¾; Baltimore and Ohio, 1½; Southern preferred 1⅜; St. Paul, Kansas and Texas 

preferred, and Wabash preferred, each 1¼; Reading, 1, and Atchison ⅞. These declines were from 

the high prices prevailing about noon, the net losses for the day being somewhat less. 

Interest in the Venezuelan matter overshadowed everything else, and, pending further 

developments, the disposition was to close up accounts and wait events. This resulted in liquidation 

in all the leading industrials, as well as in the local railway list. The large increase in Wabash earnings 

for the second week in December did not check the decline in the preferred stock, and the 

ratification of the Pacific Mail-Panama Railway agreement was marked by a decline of more than 2 

points in Pacific Mail. The foreign exchange market was strong and rates were verging on the point 

where gold may be shipped to London on Saturday. There was a slight flurry in the call money 

market. Loans on the exchange ran up to 3 per cent, and many banks demanded 4 per cent. . . 


- 110 - 

THE COUNTRY’S RESPONSE 

The unanimous passage of Mr. Hitt’s resolution appropriating $100,000 to defray the expense of 

the Venezuela Boundary Commission furnishes the best possible evidence of the disposition of 

Congress toward the recommendations of the President’s message. It is apparent that the resolution 

stands in need of amendment since it fails to indicate the number of Commissioners to be appointed 

and does not clearly prescribe the duties they are to perform. Those details can be attended to later. 

The main thing was that the House should at once and with unanimity support the President in the 

firm position he has taken. That has been done, and in doing it the House responds to the spirit of 

the country. 

We are informed by cable dispatches that the President’s application of the Monroe doctrine to 

the Venezuela controversy is unsatisfactory to the great powers of Europe. This is interesting, but 

not specially important, since we already knew the temper of the European powers and could easily 

have foreseen the nature of the replies they would make to the inquiries said to have been addressed 

to them by Lord Salisbury before he drew up his answer to Secretary Olney’s letter of July 20. The 

166


Monroe doctrine in its modern applications, through which it broadens to a set of principles that it 

seems to us it would be much better to call the American doctrine, was not formulated for the 

interest and behoof of the great European powers. It works for our interest, for our defense, and to 

the entire satisfaction of the American people, who have given it their unfailing support for threequarters 

of a century. We have no more occasion to inquire how it suits Europe than Europe has to 

inquire if we are content with its balance of power arrangements, about which we have never given 

ourselves the slightest concern. But chief among the fools who have favored us with their valuable 

opinions upon the unsubstantial character of the Monroe doctrine are the Paris journalists, who will 

be singing a very different tune in the not distant future. 

Anybody could foresee that stocks would fall upon the publication of the President’s message. In 

particular it could be foreseen that American securities would be thrown over in the London market 

with the natural and inevitable effect of advancing interest rates in New-York and of creating a 

condition favorable to a considerable outflow of gold. This state of things would call for serious 

revision of any arrangements hitherto contemplated for maintaining the Treasury reserve. But the 

cause of the trouble provides also the remedy. It has always seemed plain to us that in ordinary 

conditions no popular loan would appreciably add to the stock of gold in the Treasury, and we have 

often given our reasons for holding that opinion. But when once the patriotism of the American 

people is appealed to, as it is most powerfully appealed to by the President’s message, when it is 

understood that English holders of our securities are throwing them upon the market, partly, of 

course, through motives of speculative prudence, but partly also through a sentiment of awakening 

hostility, the American people will take the bonds of a popular loan at any moment in amounts 

sufficient to replenish the reserve. Such an appeal from the Treasury would call forth accumulations 

of gold from all their hiding places, petty in the individual sums, but in the aggregate sufficient for 

any Government need. 


- 111 - 

VENEZUELAN MINISTER PLEASED 

Gratified at the Stand Taken by President Cleveland 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 18—Señor Andrade, the Venezuelan Minister, expressed himself as 

thoroughly gratified with the recommendations of the President, and is confident that the 

enthusiasm in Venezuela when the main points of the message are received where will be very great. 

He considers as remarkable the deep insight into the question shown by the President, and can 

find no words strong enough to commend the masterly presentation of the facts of the controversy 

by Secretary Olney. 

In regard to the commission Señor Andrade believes it would be most welcome to Venezuela, a 

similar commission having been recommended by the representative of that country in London in 

1893 to Lord Rosebery. 

That proposition provided for eight or ten men of the highest technical attainments, including 

lawyers, to examine the legal portion of the controversy, and in case of failure of this commission to 

agree, the points it left disputed would be referred to arbitration. 

167

19 – 20 December 1895 

The Minister thinks the commission suggested by the President could complete its labors 

without going to Venezuela in a few months, from material available in this country. 


- 112 - 

VIEWS ON THE MESSAGE 

Further Opinion Regarding President Cleveland’s Action 

EX-SECRETARY EVARTS SATISFIED 

Abram S. Hewitt Opposed to War—Criticism by the Rev. Dr. Lyman Abbott 

—Mayor Schieren’s Views 

Reporters for The New-York Times obtained further interviews yesterday on the President’s 

message regarding the Venezuelan boundary question. 

Ex-Secretary William W. Evarts said: “I am satisfied with the course the President has taken.” 

Ex-Mayor Abram S. Hewitt, after expressing a disinclination to discuss the President’s message, 

said: “So far as I understand it, this is not the Monroe doctrine at all. If war is declared, it will be 

declared on some other basis than that. But I think the horse sense of the country at large is 

thoroughly opposed to war. Our people do not want to fight about the exact location or a boundary 

line away down in Venezuela. It seems to me that the Monroe doctrine is not the issue here and 

does not cover the case. The thorough student of international law must be well aware of this. The 

message is the statement of a good politician. 

“The Venezuelan question, it seems to me, must be decided on some other issue than this elastic 

Monroe doctrine. I recall in this connection the setting up of the empire in Mexico, at the close of 

the war, which was extremely offensive to us. But Secretary Seward practically told France she must 

get out, and France promptly did get out.” 

Gen. Russell A. Alger of Michigan was at the Fifth Avenue Hotel last night. He is a Republican 

who has often been mentioned as a possible candidate for President. Speaking of President 

Cleveland’s message, he said: “It was a bold, manly message, and it was timely. The American people 

will always support their President when he is right, and they will always support the Monroe 

doctrine.” 

Gen. Alger also said that the action of the House of Representatives yesterday in unanimously 

voting the one-hundred-thousand-dollar appropriation for the expenses of a commission to be 

appointed by the President to investigate the boundary question was right and worthy of all 

commendation. He deprecated the suggestion that has been made by some that the message was 

written for partisan reasons. He did not believe that such a criticism should be made, and he was 

emphatically of the opinion that on an issue like this all patriotic Americans should stand together. 

Gen. Anson G. McCook, now City Chamberlain and formerly Secretary of the United States 

Senate, and always a Republican of high standing, said: “President Cleveland’s message is a dignified, 

patriotic document well worthy of an American President.” 

Mr. McCook also said that he was disgusted with the idea that when a President of the United 

States made such a declaration he should be charged with doing it for partisan purposes. 

168


Tax Commissioner Wells, a Republican and a strong partisan, said that the people would sustain 

President Cleveland in this matter as they had sustained President Lincoln years ago. 

Gen. Felix Agnus of Baltimore, a stanch Republican, who arrived at the Fifth Avenue Hotel last 

night, said that he believed in proceeding carefully in the matter. He did not want to underestimate 

England as a foe. But if it should come to war then all British control should be banished from this 

continent. 

All the South American republics would be with the United States in the conflict, and Canada 

and the British possessions in North America should be wiped out and made a part of the United 

States. 

Simon Sterne said: “This is far too important a matter for me to discuss in an offhand way and 

without due reflection.” 

James C. Carter said: “I have read the message, but I cannot enter into any discussion of it. I 

cannot express an opinion on it.” 

Francis L. Eames, President of the Stock Exchange, said: “While I do not think that the time had 

come for such a message, it is a good thing for a nation to stand firmly for its rights. Not being a 

prophet or a son of a prophet, I cannot foresee the outcome.” 

Collis P; Huntington said: “I think England made a mistake in declining arbitration. Out people 

are thoroughly committed to the Monroe doctrine, and will stand by it.” 

Washington E. Connor said: “No doubt the President will have the support of loyal citizens 

throughout the country in whatever action he may take to maintain the Monroe doctrine. His 

argument against the forcible extension of British boundary lines is unanswerable. It is time for the 

people of this country to give more attention to patriotism than to politics. For some time each of 

the great parties has made the mistake of trying to gain some advantage at the expense of the other. 

In a situation like the present one, with a question affecting the general welfare, partisanship should 

be put aside. The Venezuelan question must be settled on its merits. That is our position, and it is 

sound. We can well afford to stand by it.” 

John F. James of Brooklyn said: “I think the President has done a grand thing. I have always had 

a high regard for Mr. Cleveland, but the course he takes in this matter increases my admiration of 

him greatly. His views are marked with the greatest propriety, and should not only be acquiesced in 

by every true American citizen, but given the most unqualified indorsement as well.” 

A. Abraham of the firm of Abraham & Straus of Brooklyn said: “I believe the President to be a 

very wise and conservative man, and do not believe he has taken the present step without exercising 

the greatest judgment and being thoroughly advised. If England is encroaching on our territory, or 

infringing on the Monroe doctrine, we should not hesitate about showing our true colors. Still, I 

think that when the only thing at issue is the question of boundary, the matter is one which can be 

settled by arbitration. 

“We are not so well prepared to go to war as England, with her enormous fleet. We are trying 

hard to equal England in that respect. England should be content with her possessions on the 

American continent, which cover, I believe, a larger area than the United States does. Why she 

should assume her present attitude on the Venezuelan question I find it difficult to understand.” 

Thomas E. Pearson of Brooklyn said: “I think the President’s message is a grand doctrine. There 

is a democratic tone about it which everybody will admire. The President takes a very proper view of 

the matter, and his position will certainly commend itself to every citizen. He very wisely suggests 

arbitration, and I think England, in due course of time, will see the justice of the position, and act 

accordingly.” 

169

19 – 20 December 1895 

Public Administrator William B. Davenport of Brooklyn said: “I heartily approve of the 

President’s sentiments. I trust that no warlike results will follow. The President only performed a 

duty which could not have been avoided.” 

Mayor Schieren of Brooklyn said: “I am glad to see the President take the stand that he has 

taken. I believe in the Monroe doctrine and its enforcement. There is a line drawn, and when foreign 

powers propose to go beyond it I believe the President should stand firm in opposing them. I do 

not think that the president has any political motives in this matter, as has been suggested in some 

quarters. Every public official is open to the criticism that his every public act is for a selfish 

purpose. I have seen nothing to indicate that President Cleveland desires another term.” 

Justice William E. Osborne of the Brooklyn City Court said: “I heartily approve of the 

President’s action, and of the doctrine it so ably sets forth. I believe it will meet with universal 

approval as soon as it is fully understood.” 

Ex-Park Commissioner George V. Brown of Brooklyn said: “President Cleveland has always 

shown himself honest and faithful to the interest of the American people in every emergency, and 

he has not failed and will tot fail us in the present instance.” 

Bernard J. York of Brooklyn said: “I think it one of the finest and strongest documents that ever 

emanated from the Executive Mansion. It is certainly time that we asserted ourselves in defense of 

the Monroe doctrine as against the encroachments of European powers. The message of the 

President is higher than mere politics,” 

I. Augustus Stanwood, Chief Accountant of the Brooklyn Police Department, a cousin of the 

late James G. Blaine, said: “I think Mr. Cleveland has taken a very good stand, indeed. The United 

States has never interfered with European matters, and has always kept its hands off in questions 

directly affecting European countries. But our country has a direct interest in all that appertains to 

foreign influence with matters affecting this hemisphere. I do not think we will have wait. The 

British Government can scarcely afford it at present, but I am glad that Mr. Cleveland has taken 

such a decided stand. I speak as a Republican and as an American citizen.” 

Police Superintendent McKelvey of Brooklyn said: “I like the note of Americanism in President 

Cleveland’s message.” 

Brig. Gen. Jarnes McLeer said: “It seems to me that there is but one opinion of the position 

taken by the President in respect to the question. All party lines are obliterated. It is possible that the 

wise men of this country, after careful consideration, may determine that the question is not one that 

comes within the provisions of the Monroe doctrine, but until that decision is made it is the duty at 

the American people to stand by their President and adopt his patriotic utterances as their own.” 

Prof. Franklin W. Hooper of Brooklyn said: “My impression is that the President knows what he 

is about. I have not had time to read his message carefully. I do not at this moment recall that he has 

made during his Administration any serious mistakes in his foreign policy. I am of the opinion that 

the people of the United States ‘will stand solidly behind the President in this matter.” 

The Rev. Dr. Lyman Abbott, pastor of Plymouth Church, Brooklyn, said: “I hesitate to criticise 

the foreign policy of the President of the United States, because I cannot but assume that he 

possesses a knowledge respecting the question at issue greater than that of most private citizens. But 

assuming the facts to be all as stated in his message, I should dissent earnestly from the conclusion 

to which he would lead the country. 

“The Monroe doctrine was legitimate and necessary at the time it was propounded. Its wisdom, 

even as Monroe propounded it, is more doubtful now, and there appears to me to be no reason for 

extending it, while it is certain that the President’s policy would be a very great extension of it. 

170


“We have offered our friendly offices to Great Britain, and she has declined them. Now the 

President practically proposes that we shall say to Great Britain, ‘You must do in South America 

what we think is right, or we will go to war with you.’ If she refuses, and we do go to war with her, 

this means danger all along our Northern border from Maine to Vancouver. It means also a possible 

peril to all our seaports from British fleets, and this double peril the President proposes that we shall 

invite. 

“At some remote future day England may come into conflict with us if we allow her to extend 

her South American colony; therefore, we are to challenge her to a conflict now. In truth, our 

interests would be promoted rather than imperiled by English immigration to South America and 

the increase of English colonists on that continent. The spirit of the Monroe doctrine is hostility to 

the introduction at monarchical institutions on this hemisphere. An English colony is more really 

republican than a Spanish-American republic. If every one of those republics could be converted 

into an English colony the United States might well felicitate herself upon the change. Every 

increase of Anglo-Saxon civilization in the world is a gain to the world. Every increase of that 

civilization in America is a gain to our own nation. Canada is a far better neighbor than Mexico. 

“As our own interests do not call for intervention, so neither does justice. In case of a great 

palpable wrong in South America like the massacre of the Armenians in Turkey, for example, or like 

the invasion of Mexico by France, our intervention might justly be defended on humanitarian and 

philanthropic grounds. 

“But there is no such palpable and monstrous wrong in the present case. There is a dispute 

concerning boundary lines, which to all but a limited number of Americans is very obscure and 

uncertain. 

“If we are to interfere in every such case, it can only be on the ground that we assume a 

protectorate over the whole of South America, an assumption which neither our interests, our 

duties, nor our abilities warrant. 

“I very much hope that the Republican House of Representatives will refuse to grant the 

President the appropriation which he asks for a commission to investigate the Venezuelan boundary 

question, and will adopt so far as in it lies, a policy for minding our own business.” 


- 113 - 

VIEWS OF GERMAN JOURNALS 

The Venezuelan Question Regarded as a Serious One 

BERLIN, Dec. 18.—The message of President Cleveland to the United States Congress in 

regard to Venezuela is heartily indorsed by the United States Embassy here. The authorities of the 

embassy applaud Mr. Cleveland’s firmness, but will not talk any further on the subject. 

The Vossische Zeitung, in commenting on President Cleveland’s message on the Venezuelan 

question, says that the President’s sharp tone against England and his emphasizing the Monroe 

doctrine will attract the attention of other powers. 

The National Zeitung says: 

171

19 – 20 December 1895 

“Rudeness toward unliked countries is the rule when Presidents reseek office. As the 

Washington Government claims exclusive rights in the matter of arbitrating American affairs, the 

whole arbitration claim becomes a pure farce.” 

The Boersen Courier says that England first haughtily treated the Alabama claims, but was 

afterward obliged to accept arbitration on the question, and that established a precedent. 

The Boersen Zeitung says: 

“President Cleveland’s answer leaves nothing to be desired in its outspokenness.” 


- 114 - 

DISAGREES WITH THE PRESIDENT 

A Yale Professor Criticises Mr. Cleveland’s Message 

NEW-HAVEN, Conn., Dec. 19.—Prof. William G. Sumner of Yale writes to a local newspaper 

that he has been incorrectly reported on the Venezuelan question. He says: 

“I dissent from every statement of the history or law contained in it, (the President’s message,) 

and I regard all the proceedings in the matter as unjustifiable. The suggestions of the message 

seemed to me undiplomatic and mischievous. 

“There will be a sober second thought to this matter. War with England would be grave business 

for our sons and for our property. If we are only playing with the nation or war, believing ourselves 

secure, we shall not cut a good figure in our own eyes when we come to realize how we are acting. 

Let us wait for the second thought. Possibly it may also prove a boomerang in its political effects.” 

WHAT WOULD RESULT FROM WAR? 

Ulysses D. Eddy’s Views Regarding a Conflict with Great Britain 

Ulysses D. Eddy said yesterday, in speaking of the Venezuelan affair: 

“War would be a misfortune, especially between two such nations as the United States and Great 

Britain. We see already the effects of war talk in the sale of our securities abroad and in demands for 

our gold for them. A rupture of relations would threaten us with serious financial confusion. But in 

an affair involving the country’s welfare or a National principle or policy, the people must be willing 

to make sacrifices. 

“If we were to go to war with England we must expect at first heavy losses by attacks on our 

seaboard, but we would come out of the conflict not with 3,000,000 square miles of territory but 

with 6,000,000. 

E. F. Beddall of 50 Wall Street said: “The general belief is that the President is right and the 

people will uphold him. In view of all that would be involved in war, however, it would seen that the 

question must be settled without resort to hostilities 

FORMER MINISTER PERAZA’S VIEWS 

What He Says of Territory in Dispute in South America 

172


N. Blolet Peraza of Brooklyn, who was Minister Plenipotentiary from Venezuela to the United 

States for a number of years up to 1892, gave out yesterday this brief explanation of the Guiana 

controversy. 

“Two centuries ago Holland invaded Spanish Guiana. At that period all of Venezuela was a 

Spanish possession under that name. The war ended in 1791, and according to the treaty of peace 

signed then, Spain ceded the colonies to Holland—Esequibo, Demerara, and Surinam—and the 

Esequibo was agreed upon and recorded as a dividing line between the two possessions. This treaty 

was signed at Aranjuez, in Spain, in 1791. Spain and Holland, in this treaty, had an extradition clause 

which permitted the extradition of criminals, and the Esequibo River was clearly defined as the 

dividing line between the possessions. 

“Spain owned what the treaty described as hers by right of discovery, and Holland was described 

as owning up to the Esequibo River by right of conquest over Spain. This line still stands. When 

England first drew the Schomburgk line, Venezuela protested but England stated that it was drawn 

for the purpose of exploration. Venezuela thought the explanation in good faith, and was further 

deceived when England asked Venezuela to build a lighthouse at the mouth of the Orinoco on the 

English side of the Schomburgk line. When England claimed the mouth of the Orinoco, I presented 

the protest of Venezuela to Secretary Blaine—I was Venezuelan Minister at the time—and this was 

just four years after Venezuela had been requested by England to erect the lighthouse at the mouth 

of the Orinoco. 

“During the period 1791 to the date of the independence of Venezuela, Spain had exercised full 

power and full jurisdiction in Guiana, as far as the Esequibo River, and there is not a single record of 

a protest from Holland, but, to the contrary, there are many records which show that she recognized 

the jurisdiction of Spain over that territory. England would have avoided all this trouble if she could 

have shown even in confidence to any American Minister in London any proof of her right to a 

claim over the disputed territory. 

VENZUELANS ARE ENTHUSIASTIC 

President Crespo Says They Are Most Grateful to the “Great Republic” 

Col. George W. Turner, editor of The New-York Recorder, sent the following telegram to President 

Crespo Tuesday night: 

“Will your Excellency voice to the citizens of the United States the opinion of your countrymen 

on President Cleveland’s message?” 

This reply was received last night: 

“I answer your telegram with satisfaction. Popular enthusiasm here is indescribable. All 

Venezuelans pronounce to-day with profound respect and gratitude the name of the Great 

Republic.” 

What Henry Clews Suggests 

Henry Clews sent the following telegram yesterday to Washington addressed to Senator Wolcott 

of Colorado and to Representative Sereno Payne of New-York: 

President Cleveland’s proposition to Congress to appoint a commission to determine the 

boundary line in the dispute between England and Venezuela can be made available for an amicable 

settlement of the vexed question, provided Marquis Salisbury will also appoint a commission for the 

173

19 – 20 December 1895 

same purpose, and then leave the settlement of the question to the two commissions, whose 

decision will be final without appeal. This will end the business and cannot fail to be satisfactory to 

all concerned. Congress should pass a resolution requiring the President to invite England to 

appoint a commission to co-operate with our commission in effecting a settlement of the boundaryline 

as above proposed.” 


- 115 - 

COMMISSION BILL GOES OVER 

A Populist Senator Insists upon the Observance of the Rule 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19.—As soon as the Journal of yesterday was read in the Senate to-day, 

a clerk from the House delivered to the Senate the Venezuelan Commission bill, and the Vice 

President laid it before the Senate. Practically the entire session was devoted to consideration of this 

bill. 

Mr. Sherman (Rep., Ohio), moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Foreign 

Relations; but, as his attention was called to the fact that the present Chairman of that committee 

(Mr. Morgan, Dem, Ala.) was not in the Chamber, he withdrew the motion temporarily. 

Mr. Cockrell. (Dem, Mo.), Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, reported back 

favorably the concurrent resolution for the holiday recess, from Friday, Dec. 20, until Friday, Jan. 3, 

but Mr. Chandler (Rep., N.H.), objected to the present consideration of the concurrent resolution, 

holding that the Venezuela business should be disposed of first. The resolution went over until tomorrow. 

Mr. Allen (Pop., Neb.), offered a resolution instructing the Finance Committee to inquire 

whether it would not be expedient and proper for the Government of the United States at this time, 

“when the contingency of war between the British Empire and the United States of America may 

suddenly arise,” to open its mints to the free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at the ratio of 

18 to 1; also to issue an adequate volume of greenbacks, and to withdraw the National bank power 

of currency issue. 

M. Platt (Rep., Conn.) moved to strike out the “whereases” in reference to war; and then both 

he and Mr. Gorman (Dem., Md.) objected to its consideration to-day. 

Mr. Morgan on the Commission 

The House bill appropriating $100,000 for the expenses of the proposed commission to 

Venezuela was laid before the Senate, and Mr. Morgan (Dem., Ala.), Chairman of the Committee of 

Foreign Relations, addressed the Senate on the subject. The Senate, he said, in considering a 

question of such gravity, ought to deliberate as long as was proper and necessary in order to come to 

an absolutely correct judgment; and he therefore favored the reference of the bill to the Committee 

on Foreign Relations. But he should object to any such reference unless the Senate agreed that it 

would take no recess until the committee should make its report. For, while he would hasten slowly 

174


in the matter, he would still make all necessary speed. It was a question that was agitating the people 

of the United States, and of the whole world; and delay would give an opportunity for the formation 

of incorrect opinions that might become very unfortunate. He preferred to have appropriate and 

necessary deliberation. He had doubts as to whether Congress intended to intervene in that which 

was a diplomatic question, or whether it intended to leave to the President of the United States the 

full and unembarrassed exercise of his Constitutional power in framing and shaping the diplomatic 

question for the future consideration of Congress. 

The division line between the functions of Congress and of the President was a clear one, and 

was one which he did not care to cross by anticipation. As an illustration of his meaning, he 

instanced the case of Mr. Blount, who was sent by the President as a special Commissioner to 

Hawaii without nomination to or confirmation by the Senate. That question was again involved in 

this matter, and ought to be duly considered and acted on. It was for the Senate to determine 

whether it would interfere in the matter legislatively, now, or whether it would leave it where the 

President desired (as indicated in his message) it to be left, in the hands of the Executive. There was 

no difference of opinion, he believed, between the President and Congress as to the promptitude 

with which the question ought to be settled. He believed that the President and Congress were in 

entire accord. 

The President’s Act Conclusive 

So far as the Monroe doctrine was concerned, that was settled by the action of the Executive, at 

least; and the conclusions reached by the Executive on it could be absolutely and unequivocally 

confirmed. He did not at all, he thought, mistake the sense of Congress or of the people of the 

United States on that subject. The question of the application of the doctrine to the present ease was 

one which was settled by the President’s message quite as conclusively. But it was not settled 

absolutely. The Government has passed now to an attitude on the Monroe doctrine that would 

gratify, he thought, the present generation of men and all generations of Americans who might live 

hereafter. It was an assertion of the right of the United States, as the controlling nationality on this 

continent. It has been made and would stand as the law of the United States. He was incapable of 

expressing the ratification he felt that a question which had been so long debated had at last received 

such a clear-cut definition. He could never express his gratitude that a conclusion had been arrived 

at so entirely comporting with the dignity and honor of the Government of the United States, with 

its prestige among the nations of the world, and with the sentiment of all the people of the country. 

Mr. Sherman Commends the Message 

Mr. Sherman, (Rep. Ohio), who is to be Mr. Morgan’s successor as Chairman of the Committee 

on Foreign Relations, was then next speaker. He expressed his general assent to Mr. Morgan’s views, 

and commended the President’s message, but favored a reference of the House bill to the 

Committee on Foreign Relations, and its deliberate consideration by that committee and by the 

Senate. The bill, as passed by the House, he said, should be amended, defined, and limited. He 

indorsed the Monroe doctrine, but argued that its application to a specific case was a matter of the 

gravest importance to the United States and to the world. The controversy was a serious one, but he 

had no doubt that the question would bet settled peaceably. An assertion should be made of the 

right of the United States to prevent European powers from invading the American continent and 

175

19 – 20 December 1895 

treating it as they treated Africa and Asia. America was now settled in every part by people of 

European origin, England having the greatest interest. Mr. Sherman declared: 

Under the circumstances, I do not expect that a war will ensue. I do not contemplate or wish to contemplate 

the possibility of such an event. I have seen enough of war in my time to dread its principles and its consequences. I 

do not wish, in the slightest degree, to say a word that would indicate that a war was likely to ensue about this small 

matter. At the same time I think that the President of the United States did right in taking the ground that it is our 

duty, as the most powerful of American nations, to say to the countries of Europe: “These two continents are 

already occupied by Christian people, and we are willing to see that their rights shall not be trampled upon by 

European powers.” As a matter of course, we cannot interfere in any agreement made between Venezuela and 

Great Britain as to the boundary between Venezuela and British Guiana, but I have a map here [pointing to it] 

which shows repeated encroachments made by Great Britain. This is a serious controversy, and Great Britain has 

taken the ground that she will not even submit it to arbitration. 

Now, I think that the British people, when they understand this matter, when they see that it has attracted the 

attention of the civilized world, will not insist upon that refusal, especially when it is recollected that the Monroe 

doctrine was not, perhaps, as much the doctrine of Monroe as it was the doctrine of Mr. Canning, the English 

Prime Minister. 

While we are in no hurry, I do not wish this matter to pend beyond the present session. But I do think that the 

bill ought to be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and that it should be acted upon promptly. Let that 

committee hear suggestions of amendment to the House bill. If all amendments be voted down by the committee 

and the Senate, and if they choose to take the House bill, well and good. We will pass it. But I demand the right of 

the Senate to consider so grave a proposition as this, and not to be hurried in its consideration. It is supposed that 

we are a slow-moving body. Well, we ought to be. This bill ought to be referred to the Committee on Foreign 

Relations, and the committee should be instructed to report it back – say to-morrow, or at any other time necessary 

– and let it then be discussed in the Senate. If the committee reports that amendments are necessary, and if the 

Senate adopts those amendments, I have no doubt that the House will also agree to them, and if the committee 

does not report any amendments, the Senate will pass the bill as it came from the House. That will show no haste, 

no excitement. 

Mr. Lodge Asks a Reference 

Mr. Lodge (Rep., Mass.), said that it would be difficult to exaggerate the gravity of the question 

involved in the bill. It seemed to him that the proper course for the Senate to take with such an 

important matter was the usual course—to send the bill to the Committee on Foreign Relations and 

to instruct that committee to report at once—to-morrow if the Senate so pleased. He did not think 

that Congress ought to adjourn for the holidays until the bill was disposed of. He had not the least 

desire to delay action. On the contrary, he wished to expedite it in every possible way. But he 

thought that action taken by the Senate in its ordinary and usual way, after the report of a 

committee, would have far more weight and would meet much more certainly with the approbation 

of the whole American people than if the bill was passed now without having consideration from 

the appropriate committee. If it were referred to-day it could be reported back to-morrow and 

passed by the Senate. He added: 

Let Congress remain in session until the bill is disposed of. Surely, at this time, Senators are not going to set the 

question of a holiday against dealing with a matter which involves a principle on which are staked the interests and 

safety of the United States, and which may bring hostilities between the two great English-speaking nations of the 

world. It is of the utmost importance that we shall show to the world that we are united, without distinction of party 

or of section, in support of the policy which the President’s message outlines. We shall be able to say, as Webster 

said, that our politics stop at the water’s edge, and that when we have to deal with a foreign question we are all 

simply Americans. It has been freely charged in the English press published in London and in that small edition of it 

176


published in the City of New-York, that this whole thing is a matter of politics, and that it is being used by the 

President for electioneering purposes. 

This is the most mistaken view ever uttered. I believe that the American people, without distinction of party, 

believe in the Monroe doctrine. 

Mr. Voorhees Ready to Act 

Mr. Voorhees (Dem., Ind.) said that he could see no reason why action on the House bill should 

not be taken at once. He was not contemplating war or peace. He was contemplating what was right 

in the case. He was not in haste, and the English Government had not been in haste when it took 

five months to make up its mind what answer to give to Mr. Olney’s dispatch, or whether it would 

answer it at all. He had no fear of war. He looked upon war as a horror, and hoped that every 

Christian man did so. But there would be no war over this matter. He declared: 

There is a hostage on this continent, north of us; and England will not fight on an issue of this kind. She does 

not dare to do so. The commerce of the world is in English bottoms. No! There will be an adjustment and a 

settlement. Let us have that understood, and we will go along peaceably. Let us now go forward and settle the 

question for ourselves, so far as our responsibilities are involved. Let England have what belongs to her and no 

more. 

I trust that we will waste no further time on this great question, but dispose of it, pass the bill, and let the 

President appoint his commission. 

Mr. Allen (Pop., Neb.,) objected to the second reading of the bill to-day—so that the motion to 

refer could not be entertained. There was no doubt, he said, that there was unanimous agreement in 

the Senate on the subject of the Monroe doctrine. Nobody misapprehended the force of that 

doctrine or what it was. But there might be a grave question as to its application to this particular 

case. He looked upon it, not as a rule of international law except so far as it was a rule of National 

self-defense. 

Mr. Hawley Would Go Slow 

Mr. Hawley (Rep., Conn.), expressed regret at the tone at Mr. Voorhees’s remarks. It was not 

wise, he said, to assume that either the great British nation or the great American people would 

refuse to fight in any imaginable contingency. He would not discuss the question of war at all. What 

was desired under the provisions of the House bill was information. There was not a Senator or a 

citizen who would not be very glad indeed to receive the careful report of five leading jurists on the 

merits of the question. Nobody knew what the facts were. The English Government itself did not 

know—as was shown by a map in which there were six different boundaries. If that was not a case 

for a commission, he did not know what would be. If the Senate should act upon the bill without its 

having received the mature consideration of the Committee on Foreign Relations, it would be 

reproached with having departed from its usual course. On the other hand, if the bill were sent to 

the committee, various amendments would be offered to it; for instance, that the Commissioners 

should be nominated and approved by the Senate, and that a time for final report should be fixed in 

the bill. 

Mr. Chandler (Rep., N.H.), obtained the floor but his contribution to the discussion consisted in 

having read from the Clerk’s desk the memorial submitted to Congress and the President last 

177

19 – 20 December 1895 

February on the part of English gentlemen to have a system of international arbitration established 

to prevent war. 

An American Doctrine 

Mr. Teller (Rep., Col.), contended that in ordinary decency the Senate ought to wait until the bill 

was reported from the Committee on Foreign Relations. The President, he said, had the power to 

appoint a commission without the consent of Congress; but if he wanted the assistance of Congress 

he was entitled to it. The President’s message, as a whole, met with his hearty approval, but he had 

expected it. No President and no Secretary of State, he said, had reached a point where he would 

retire before the assertion of the Monroe doctrine. It was, however, not merely the Monroe 

doctrine; it was the American doctrine. It was a doctrine which grew out of the right of self-defense. 

Continuing, he said: 

If we believe that the establishment of colonies on the western hemisphere is contrary to our interests and 

threatening to our institutions, it is our right to say that they shall not be established. We do not resort to 

international law for our defense; we resort to the right of every nation to say that no other nation shall arrogate to 

itself so much power as to threaten its stability. Let the bill go to the committee, and, if the committee wants two 

weeks to consider it, or a month, let the committee take that time. Nothing will be lost by delay. Great Britain will 

not misunderstand our attitude, and does not misunderstand it now. We know that we are not willing to abandon 

the Monroe doctrine, or to permit European Governments to interfere improperly in American affairs. 

If war should break out, it would be a universal war. We would not be without European allies. The interest of 

certain European countries would be that we should destroy the prestige of treat Britain, not only on sea, but on 

land. Great Britain knows that, we know it, and the world knows it. The great Russian Government, patiently 

waiting to get its advent to the sea, would find an opportunity which it has never yet had. Do you think it would be 

slow to take it? Russia is waiting to crowd her domination on the line of British India. Do you suppose she would 

fall to do it? She is waiting to complete her commenced domination over China. Do you suppose she would fail to 

take the opportunity? 

In my judgment there is no danger of war over a trivial question like this. The consequences would be more 

serious to Great Britain than to us. But I do not wish to say that in the way of threat. I do not believe that that is the 

way to discuss this question. Neither Great Britain nor we can afford to go to war unless there is a great principle at 

stake and a great necessity for war. It would be the most inhuman thing in the world for these two great Englishspeaking 

people to go to war. There in no haste in this matter. It is a question involving the friendship, peace, and 

prosperity of the two greatest nations of the world. Let us approach it as statesmen and Senators ought. Let us not 

be impatient. And, above all, let us not be anxious only to get political advantage one side of the other. It is too big a 

question for party purposes and party gain. Let the question be settled in such a way that when Great Britain sees 

what you have done she will know that there is a united nation back of it, and that we have, as we ought to have, the 

approval of the civilized world. We cannot afford to go to war until we have that, and that cannot be had until the 

facts are judicially determined. When that determination is made I am for acting in accordance with the honor and 

dignity of the Government of the United States without reference to what way be the result. 

The Bill Goes over for a Day 

This closed the discussion, which was carried on throughout with much spirit, but with no show 

of passion or excitement As Mr. Allen (Pop., Neb.), persisted in his objection to the second reading 

of the bill, it had to lie upon the table till to-morrow, when it will have its second reading, and when 

the motion to refer it to the Committee on Foreign Relations will be in order. 

In the meantime, Mr. Morgan, Chairman or the committee, asked members of it to meet in 

committee at 10 A.M. to-morrow, saying that there were other resolutions before it, embodying the 

178


same question, and that he believed the committee would be prepared to report to the Senate tomorrow 

with such suggestions as it might deem proper to make, when the Senate could take action 

on the bill. 


- 116 - 

ENGLAND SLOW OF ACTION 

No Developments Expected Till After the Holidays 

A SEMI-OFFICIAL STATEMENT MADE 

The Chancellor of the, Exchequer Thinks the Venezuelan Difficulty Will Be Adjusted 

Without a Resort to Arms 

LONDON, Dec. 19.—Lord Salisbury did not come to London to-day. Business at the 

Government offices went along as usual, and there was no bustle or excitement. It is the opinion in 

official quarters that there will be no developments in the Venezuelan matter until the Christmas 

holidays are over. It is also thought that the Government will not act in any way until it receives a 

formal intimation of the appointment of the American commission. 

In a speech delivered at Bristol to-day Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Chancellor of the Exchequer, 

made a passing reference to President Cleveland’s message. Some people, he said, appeared to 

regard a war between the United States and Great Britain as impossible owing to their ties of 

kinship. 

Nothing, however, was impossible. War had already happened between them. If kinsmen 

unhappily differed they became sometimes very bitter enemies. But he did not believe that many 

persons, if any, on either side of the Atlantic thought that the people of the United States or Great 

Britain wanted war. He was confident that when a true statement of Great Britain’s case was ably 

and fully presented and Lord Salisbury’s dispatches were laid before both peoples the result would 

be peaceful and honorable to both countries. 

Gen. Lord Wolseley, Commander in Chief of the British forces, in the course of an address to 

the inmates of the Soldiers’ Home at Norwich to-day, mentioned the difference between the United 

States and Great Britain over the Venezuelan question and exclaimed: “God forbid that there should 

be war.” 

The Rev. Joseph Parker, in the course of a sermon in the City Temple to-day, told his hearers 

that there would be no war between England and America. The Christians of both countries, he 

said, would keep the peace of the world. . . 


- 117 - 

FRENCHMEN APPROVE THE MESSAGE 

179

19 – 20 December 1895 

Rejoice at the Stumbling Block to Further British Aggression 

PARIS, Dec. 19.—M. Delcasse, formerly French Minister of the Colonies, said in an interview 

with a United Press reporter to-day: 

“Mr. Cleveland is a man of sound sense and reflection and it is not likely that he sent his 

Venezuelan message to Congress without having duly weighed the consequences and being 

practically certain of achieving his aim.” 

M. Delcasse declined to say whether he approved the message or not, and added that if it were 

true that England meditated taking action in Asia Minor it would cause modifications in the policy 

of Turkey. 

M. Deloncle, the French Colonial expert and Deputy, spoke in warm approval of the message, 

which, he said, vigorously affirms an indestructible national tradition and promulgates a new public 

right against which British rage is powerless. 

“It is useless,” he declared, “for England to hope to obtain the support of Europe in this matter. 

Mr. Cleveland has turned the tables by employing toward Great Britain the methods that she herself 

has hitherto used against her enemies. France, which has long been demanding the arbitration at her 

dispute with Brazil, is bound to support Mr. Cleveland, who reassures France of at the impossibility 

of England’s encroaching upon French territory recognized by the Utrecht treaty. The appointment 

of an American boundary commission will accomplish a work of justice and establish an excellent 

precedent. The eventual consequences of Mr. Cleveland’s attitude will be the autonomy of Canada 

and the end of British intrigues in Central and South America. Europe now realizes that a force 

exists which is capable of imposing respect for a right which it has hitherto been accustomed to 

ignore.” 

M. Joseph Reinach, journalist and member of the Chamber of Deputies, said: “Mr. Cleveland’s 

interpretation of the Monroe doctrine is quite inadmissible. His message is either an election 

manoeuvre or an aggressive expression of a fixed resolve to provoke a conflict with England. 

Nothing in the Monroe doctrine warrants American interference in the demarcation of a frontier.” 

M. Houanet, member of the Chamber of Deputies, said: “England’s attitude in Venezuela amply 

justifies the United States in intervening in behalf of a weaker republic. President Cleveland’s 

message will cause England to reconsider, and not rush into a conflict over a few square miles of 

waste land.” 

M. Hanotaux, who was Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Cabinet of Premier Dupuy, and 

retained that portfolio in the succeeding Ministry formed by M. Ribot, when asked to give his views 

upon the tension between the United States and Great Britain over the latter’s claim in Venezuela, 

said that no serious French politician would venture to express an opinion in a case upon which two 

powers friendly to France were at variance. He had, he said, the most implicit confidence that Lord 

Salisbury’s judgment, firmness, and fairness would attain a satisfactory solution of the difficulty 

without resort to force. M. Hanotaux declined to discuss the Monroe doctrine. Each case, he said, 

ought to be judged upon its merits. If the boundary dispute between France and Brazil became acute 

it ought to be submitted to arbitration. In the small dispute between France and Venezuela, which 

was not a territorial question, the United States sought to interfere. He (Hanotaux) resisted such 

interference and simply demanded that France be left to settle the matter without the intervention of 

a third party. 

The Temps says that the possibility or a war between Great Britain and the United States 

controverts the proverb that “Blood is thicker than water,” and pricks the bubble of a gigantic 

180


Anglo-Saxon federation. It adds that the violence of American politicians is laughable, although the 

matter becomes grave when it is remembered that the excitement is echoed in England. 


- 118 - 

PROF. WESTLAKE’S OPINION 

He Discusses the Monroe Doctrine in The London Times 

London, Dec. 19.—The Times will to-morrow publish a letter anent the Venezuelan dispute from 

Prof. John Westlake, Professor of International Law in the University of Cambridge. Prof. Westlake 

says: 

“How far the Monroe doctrine is consistent with international law depends upon the 

circumstances of each case to which it is applied. 

“If the United States can show that the dispute affects any real interest of theirs they are as free 

to intervene as England would be under similar conditions, but they cannot maintain their right to 

intervene merely because the Venezuelan dispute falls, if it does, within the general terms of a rule of 

their policy, which, in other cases, may concern real interests of theirs. 

“If President Cleveland considers that the United States have real concern in the question, we 

may be sure that all experienced diplomats, of whom the United States have many, will agree that his 

right course is to take the best advice he can get and act upon it, but not to clothe the means by 

which he seeks advice with even the semblance of an assertion of jurisdiction.” 


- 119 - 

THE COUNTRY IS AROUSED 

It Stands Firmly by the President in the Venezuela Matter 

CONGRESS WILL DO ITS FULL DUTY 

The Senate as Determined as the House to Maintain the Nation’s Honor 

DISPOSED TO PROCEED CAREFULLY 

Probable that the Bill Providing for a Commission Will Become a Law This Week 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19.—The delay caused in the Senate in the passage of the Hitt bill, to 

authorize the President to appoint a commission to investigate the Venezuela boundary question for 

the information of the Administration and the Congress, should not be taken as an indication of 

flagging interest in the dispute between the United States and Great Britain. But the first flush of 

excitement had passed, the parties had had some chance to cultivate rivalries, and reasons not 

altogether free from partisanship helped to make it easier to let the bill go to the Committee on 

181

19 – 20 December 1895 

Foreign Relations than to force it through by a vote not altogether unanimous. The Senate 

Committees are to be changed soon. 

Willing to Trust the President 

Mr. Morgan, who is Chairman to-day, in a few days may be succeeded by Mr. Sherman, and it is 

evident that, while the Republicans are not unwilling to co-operate with the President, they are not 

indifferent to securing such commendation for their party as may be obtained by prompt and 

patriotic action in which they may lead. 

There are more plans for amending the bill in the newspapers and in the corridors of the Senate 

than can be traced to any sponsors. One hears that a proposition will be made to make the 

commission one of six or nine members, the members to be named by the President, the House, 

and the Senate, each naming a third of them. 

Mr. Morgan was more than usually friendly and trustful to-day when he declared that, for his 

part, he was willing to leave the investigation entirely to the President; and as the Hitt bill imposed 

no limitations upon the President, according him freedom as to the number and character of the 

commission, and Mr. Morgan was frank in declaring that he would not amend it, it may be the bill 

will come back from the committee unchanged in that respect. 

Against Making a Time Limit 

There is little acceptation of the proposition of Mr. Lodge to prescribe the time in which the 

commission must report. If the President shall be permitted to control the commission, and he shall 

discharge his duty with as much acceptability as he so far has shown in this matter, it is assumed he 

will not permit any time to be wasted. 

One purpose in the minds of some at the Senators is the amendment of the Hitt bill to reassert 

the Monroe doctrine as a part of the expression of the will of the Congress in giving the President 

the power to investigate, in order to be guided in future recommendations. The fact that the 

doctrine never has been expressed in a law is urged as the best reason for this amendment of this 

bill. This suggestion may meet with better acceptation than any which shall propose a limitation 

upon the President. 

There is a patriotic desire to give the impression, in anything that may be done, that the 

President is acting for the Nation, and not for a party or parts of all parties. No better way of 

conveying the National feeling can be devised than that of throwing upon the President the 

opportunity and the responsibility of securing in his own way the report that is desired. 

No One Questions His Patriotism 

There admittedly is no doubt of his patriotism. It is conceded cordially by all men here that he 

has met fully every expectation that American citizens have formed of what the President should be 

in such an emergency. It will be hurtful to the United States and its cause if at this time any 

indiscreet or embarrassing limitations, conceived in a mere party spirit, be imposed upon President 

Cleveland. 

The United States should be heard through the law the Senate is about to pass, and no mistake 

should be made in having the will of the people expressed in such a way that the impression made in 

182


England shall be doubtful or carry an intimation of reluctance on our part to trust fully the Chief 

Magistrate. 

Studying the Map 

Everybody who has not studied already the map of the Venezuelan boundary dispute has taken 

up the subject as one to which he is bound to give careful attention. Maps of the half dozen British 

lines, advancing further and further into Venezuela from Guiana, are to be found in offices and 

shops, some in plain black and white and others in colors. If similar maps are to be found in 

England, and the British citizen stops to examine them, it must become apparent to him, as it is 

plain to the dullest American, that there is something wrong with England’s case, and that Great 

Britain has been a great many years in making up the present claim against Venezuela. The map of 

the controversy is a quicker and deeper convincer than the long letter of Salisbury. 

When the proposed American commission shall have investigated for the President, and shall 

have reported with a line which it has found to be a reasonable and just limit of the English claims, 

it may be west of the Essequibo and far to the east of the sweeping line enclosing the newly 

discovered gold fields and reaching well toward the Orinoco River. 

The Case of Alaska 

Some of the students of the Venezuela boundary dispute at the State Department and the 

Capitol are wondering whether we are to have a similar dispute with Great Britain about the Alaska 

boundary line. The United States Government has neglected its possessions on the Yukon. 

Assuming that the English adventurers and prospectors who have gone there to seek gold and other 

things follow the plan of the English adventurers in Guiana and Venezuela, if Great Britain is to 

sanction that method of procedure, all the subjects of the empire in Alaska will have to do will be to 

establish themselves boldly upon territory they desire to hold, set up the flag and an outpost, claim 

the land by virtue of occupation, and then be insulted and belligerent if the assertion is made by the 

United States that the land belongs to us by treaty cession and by lines described at the time of the 

purchase from Russia. 

Would Do It if She Dare 

There is not the slightest doubt if Great Britain believed that we were no stronger than 

Venezuela the Alaska land would be claimed. 

Following further the British plan in Venezuela the Salisbury Ministry might be expected to 

refuse to submit their claims to arbitration except, perhaps, as to territory which they had not yet 

occupied, but which they hoped to get into and hold by outrageous assertion and bluster. 

If there is any widespread impression in England that the feeling here is one of resentment, the 

speeches of several Senators to-day ought to remove that impression. In the War and Navy 

Departments where there are many officers who believe a war would be helpful to them, giving the 

two branches of the service a chance to justify the legislation, appropriation, and care invested in 

their behalf for many years, during which we have avoided wars, the talk is naturally about 

preparations and resources. 

183

19 – 20 December 1895 

Men Who Hope for Peaceful Settlement 

Men who have seen war and remember some of its miseries and the train of expenses and 

excesses following war conditions, deplore the fighting talk and counsel the wise discretion that will 

enable us to dispense with it. 

Among the politicians and in the diplomatic circles there is, notwithstanding the admission that 

the situation is a serious one, the genera opinion that the extremity of war will be avoided and that 

possibly England will suggest the way to Venezuela by which that country and the United States may 

escape the conflict that would be disastrous to business and revive the unfriendliness between the 

United States and Great Britain that existed a hundred years ago, immediately after the War of the 

Revolution and until after the war of 1812. 

The Administration Is Watchful 

The concern of the Administration about the future is indicated by the report from the Navy 

Department to-day, that the North Atlantic squadron, with which Admiral Bunce was about to go to 

the southward for a practice cruise, will be held at Hampton Roads for further orders. 

If it shall sail Dec. 21, it may be assumed that the outlook is considered free from immediate 

danger. The Hitt bill will have been passed, it is believed, before that date, and the reception given to 

it in England may control the department in letting the fleet depart, or in holding it for such 

defensive purposes as it may seem likely to be useful for. 

Work for the Engineers 

Meanwhile, the services of the engineers of the army, who have direction of the submarine 

defenses of our harbors, which to some extent must be relied upon until more adequate defenses 

can be provided, will be brought into employment. Their preparations will be in the nature of things 

kept from the public. There is an impression in the army and navy that this Government has not 

kept pace with other nations in the sort of work performed in France and Germany by the general 

staff, and that every nation that might become our foe is better prepared by the study of 

hypothetical attacks and defensive operations than is the Government of the United States. 


- 120 - 

SENATE ACTION DELAYED 

Populist Allen Obstructs the Passage of the Hitt Bill 

THE PRESIDENT’S VIEWS SUSTAINED 

Members of the Upper Mouse Approve the Administration’s Attitude 

with Relation to the Venezuelan Dispute 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19.—The “calm, deliberate second thought” of the Senate, coupled with 

the desire of Mr. Allen, the Nebraska Populist, for a little cheap notoriety, operated to-day to delay 

184


action upon the House bill to appropriate $100,000 for carrying out the President’s suggestion with 

regard to the Venezuelan boundary. 

It was shown in these dispatches last night that there was a disposition in the Senate to delay 

action on the bill. This disposition was made manifest this morning when the bill came up for 

consideration. Much to the surprise of the Democrats, who had favored its immediate consideration, 

Mr. Morgan, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, moved that the bill be referred to 

his committee. The reasons he advanced for this course appeared to the Senate to be in line with the 

traditions of that body. Mr. Morgan took the ground that the dignity which should surround an 

important action like that proposed by the President would be intensified by close observance of the 

usual Senate forms. His declaration that he would not support a motion to adjourn over the holidays 

until this bill had been acted upon was a source of some comfort to those who desired immediate 

action. 

Mr. Sherman, Mr. Lodge, Mr. Teller, and Mr. Hawley of the Republicans advocated the 

reference of the bill to the Committee on Foreign Relations, while Mr. Voorhees made a vigorous 

appeal for quick consideration. Mr. Lodge offered an amendment making it necessary for the 

proposed commission to report not later than April 1. 

Mr. Allen destroyed all hope of action upon the bill to-day by objecting to its second reading. 

His performance left the bill upon the table. 

Much to the gratification of the Senate, Mr. Morgan suggested a way around the Allen obstacle. 

The Committee on Foreign Relations has had the general subject of the Monroe doctrine under 

consideration in connection with resolutions bearing upon it. This committee will meet to-morrow, 

before the Senate convenes, and arrange to accept the proposed amendments, so that it will be ready 

to act as soon as the bill is read the second time and referred to it. Its report will be submitted, 

according to the arrangement, before the Senate is ready to adjourn, so that final action may be had 

before the holiday adjournment. 

The attitude of Mr. Allen is explicable only on the ground that he was in a humor to make 

trouble and took advantage of the opportunity afforded by the rules. According to Senate Rule 14, 

“Whenever a bill or joint resolution shall be offered, its introduction shall, if objected to, be 

postponed for one day,” there must be three readings of every bill and joint resolution previous to 

its passage, which readings shall be on three different days unless the Senate shall otherwise 

unanimously direct. 

Mr. Allen may pursue his obstructive tactics to-morrow, but it is assumed that be will subside. At 

the most he could only delay consideration of the bill one day longer, unless he should decide to 

filibuster. His explanation today of his action was extremely puerile. He said he wanted the Senate to 

control the commission. 

In addition to the Lodge amendment, another will probably be inserted to the effect that the 

Senate shall confirm the appointment of the Commissioners. There is a disposition on the part of 

some members of the Committee on Foreign Relations to insert the Monroe doctrine in the bill, it 

being their opinion that a more opportune time was never presented for renewing this declaration 

and making it essentially an American doctrine. From statements made by members of the House it 

is believed that the bill, as thus amended, will be acceptable to that body and will be passed before 

the holiday adjournment. 


185

19 – 20 December 1895 

- 121 - 

SIGNATURES HARD TO GET 

Charles Stewart Smith Wants President Cleveland Criticised 

SEEKS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AID 

A Petition for a Special Meeting Circulated with Slight Success—Only Ten Names Needed 

Charles Stewart Smith, whose appetite for merchants’ movements in public affairs has been 

growing since he got some glory of the Committee of Seventy’s work, made a flat failure down town 

yesterday in an effort to get up a demonstration on the Venezuelan matter in the Chamber of 

Commerce. He talked about a meeting to members whom he met, and finding no dissent down 

town from his expressions of regret over the decline in the security market and the threatened 

exports of gold, he concluded that there would probably be something in it for Mr. Smith, in the 

way of fresh fame, if be would take the lead in trying to commit the Chamber to a criticism of 

President Cleveland’s message. 

A. petition addressed to Alexander E. Orr, President of the Chamber, was accordingly drafted 

by Mr. Smith. It read as follows: 

“Dear Sir: The undersigned members of the Chamber respectfully request that you call a special 

meeting of the Chamber at an early date for the purpose of considering the Venezuelan question, 

brought into prominence by the message of the President of the United States.” 

Ordinarily Mr. Smith has had no trouble in getting signatures in numbers to suit to any paper 

designed to bring about a special meeting of the Chamber. Ten names are sufficient for the purpose. 

They could usually be had in any block down town, or in almost any of the large office buildings. It 

was different yesterday. Mr. Smith worked hard with the paper. He found sympathetic ears for 

regretful talk of business disturbance, but unwilling pens. After hard sledding, he carried his petition 

home with him, declaring that he would not yet abandon the attempt to get signatures, 

Out of 1,000 members of the Chamber, with the majority of whom Mr. Smith considers himself 

personally friendly, he could not prevail on a meagre nine to join him in this movement. 

Mr. Smith showed the petition to President Alexandre Orr. He got little comfort from Mr. Orr, 

who said he would be bound by the rules of the Chamber to call a meeting on the petition of ten 

members, but that since the number of signatures was insufficient, he could not think of issuing a 

call. That settled the matter for the day down town, although Mr. Smith, in chagrin over the fizzle of 

his scheme, said he would get the signatures if he had to work at night for them. 

The Smith movement excited general comment down town. Much of it was severely critical of 

its originator. Business there has been much disturbed over the Venezuela affair. Investors have 

found their plans spoiled far a contented holiday season. The effect of the message has been to 

touch nearly every pocket. 

If there were any choice of seasons for losses and financial distractions, it would fall on almost 

any other time than this. But in matters affecting the general welfare, the financial district is not 

behind in loyal interest, and the bare suggestion of not standing behind the President in a 

controversy with another Government was not to be tolerated. 

If the financial community is not in a mood to ignore its losses for the week, talk of setting itself 

in opposition to the Government provoked so much resentment yesterday that a call for a special 

meeting of the Chamber of Commerce to indorse the President would doubtless have been eagerly 

186


signed. There is probably no likelihood of such a call, because sacrifices have been confined within 

too narrow compass so far to insure unanimity at expression, but the opinion of members of the 

Chamber was that while substantial indorsement might not now be feasible, the usefulness of the 

Chamber would be injured beyond hope at repair if anything were to be done by it at this time 

except in cordial and unqualified support of the Government’s position. 

Bankers who refused to sign the Smith paper felt that the financial community could afford a 

much more serious shrinkage than has yet occurred, with losses of gold, wholesale return of 

securities from Europe, and all the entailed evils rather than to expose the Chamber of Commerce 

to the adverse criticism of the country. Much as they deplored strained relations with any country, as 

a disturber of business and finance, they agreed that jealousy and distrust of New-York could in no 

way be so greatly aggravated as by the first sign of a lack of entire concurrence with the 

Government’s course and with feeling in other sections. 

The sentiment of members of the Chamber was well expressed by John A. Stewart, President of 

the United States Trust Company, who said: 

“I have heard that Charles Stewart Smith is agitating a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce, to 

be called for the purpose of considering President Cleveland’s attitude on the Venezuelan question. 

“I don’t want to criticise Mr. Smith, but I say,” and Mr. Stewart brought his fist down 

emphatically—“I say it is the duty of every American citizen to sustain the President.” 

Other remarks on Mr. Smith were less considerate of his feelings. His propensity for thrusting 

himself forward on all possible occasions seemed to exhaust the patience of some of his critics, who 

said that this performance ought to drive him into the retirement of the cemetery company of which 

he is Treasurer. 

The business of selling burial lots was thought to be the only one likely to save him from 

discredit hereafter. It was generally agreed that the memory of his Presidency of the Chamber of 

Commerce could no longer serve him in any public capacity. 

General feeling in the down-town district, shared by members of the Chamber, was that nothing 

should be permitted to indicate a division of sentiment in this country. Such expression could only 

please the English, while enthusiastic support of our Government was the surest way to command 

proper respect for it abroad. The English strength, it was pointed out, was reinforced by the 

strongest possible public approval. 

A similar spirit of loyalty here would do more to prevent further differences than any other 

agency. Comment in this line was so vigorous that many thought that the Smith fiasco might result 

in a demonstration to show the country that New-York intends to be in the front for the 

Government in whatever may occur. 

Charles Stewart Smith was seen late last night, and when asked about the petition said: 

“I have not been down town since noon, and do not know whether the petition has received the 

signatures necessary for such a call. I have no doubt that many more signatures than were needed 

were secured. 

“The first suggestion for such a meeting came from John H. Inman, not from me. Among the 

other signers when I left, besides Mr. Inman and myself, were Cornelius Vanderbilt. Chauncey M. 

Depew, and J. Edward Simmons. 

I think the meeting will probably be held next week, but just when or what action will be taken, 

of course I cannot say.” 


187

19 – 20 December 1895 

- 122 - 

THE “THUNDERER” ALARMED 

Hopes for Peace, but Advises Preparation for War 

LONDON, Dec. 19.—The newspapers in the morning will comment on the action of the 

United States Senate with relation to the bill for a commission to examine the Venezuelan boundary 

question. The Times will say of the situation: 

Despite some severe criticism in America, evidence accumulates that President Cleveland’s message was framed 

in accord with and to play upon a popular sentiment. There is no reason to doubt that the Senate will pass the 

Commission bill, although it is obvious that the commission is not likely to be granted on Mr. Cleveland’s own 

terms. A most remarkable incident of the discussion was Senator Lodge’s unconscious humor in moving that the 

Commissioners report on April 1. 

We are afraid that the Americans will not be moved by arguments drawn from precedents and established 

principles of international law. They have always shown themselves a sentimental, excitable Nation. They have the 

haziest idea of what the Monroe doctrine really is, but nevertheless they are quite willing to enter upon a holy war to 

defend it. We must reckon on this feeling and be prepared for the wildest aberrations it may cause. 

This does not lessen the gravity of the situation; indeed, it rather increases our sense of the peril to which 

immense international interests are subjected by combined sentiment and ignorance. We earnestly hope that the 

opinion of the sagacious, far-seeing men of the United States, which has already begun to assert itself, will prevail 

over the reckless policy of the President. 

The fact cannot be ignored, however, that the latter is supported by a majority of both houses and the great 

body of the public opinion of the country. As we cannot yield to Mr. Olney’s demands, whether they are supported 

by the people or not, without surrendering the title to almost the whole of our empire, we must hold ourselves 

prepared to defend our rights in any quarter where they may be threatened. 

The Standard: 

It is no small advantage that time for reflection has been gained. Englishmen have far too high respect for the 

better order of American opinion than to doubt that in the end the voice of reason will be listened to. Great Britain 

does a look to continental powers for material support. We can afford to be fairly cheerful in our isolation, for, to 

tell the whole truth at once, we do not believe that the people of the United States will ever be so unfaithful to 

reason and right as to give logical effect to the plain sense of President Cleveland’s menace. 

Great Britain may safely leave the two amateurs, Cleveland and Olney, to face the censure that the educated 

opinion of the world will pronounce on their efforts. 

In the meanwhile the cordial good will and respect that Great Britain entertains for transatlantic genius outside 

of election politics will not be impaired. 

The “isolation of England” will furnish a topic for discussion in several other newspapers. 


- 123 - 

THE ENGLISH PRESS 

Comment on the Venezuelan Incident Generally Temperate in Tone 

188


LONDON, Dec. 19.—The press continues to discuss the Venezuelan incident. Among to-day’s 

comments are the following: 

The Morning Post—There seems little doubt that the commission will hold an inquiry, in which 

event an unexpected way of escape may be provided for President Cleveland. 

The St. James’s Gazette—The Americans would fight with all the fierce energy of the race for a 

principle or an idea, and sacrifice a million men and spend a thousand million dollars to punish what 

they conceived to be an invasion of their tights or an attempt to work an injustice upon them. We 

know that, and respect them for it. 

The Daily News—The whole political prospect in the United States has changed, and the 

common sense of the American people has reasserted itself. The Senate discussed the matter of a 

grant for the commission with the dignity and gravity becoming the first assembly of the Union. The 

jingoes were evidently overawed not by what passed in the Senate, but by what was passing outside. 

They already had had a taste of plain speaking from many quarters of the Union. It is not England, 

but Europe which threatens them with confusion, and proclaims the message an outrage on right 

and injustice that has not been paralleled since the time of Napoleon. 

The Westminster Gazette—Lord Salisbury made a mistake in going beyond necessity in the case, 

and arguing against the Monroe doctrine as being obsolete. He ought to have confined himself to 

showing that it did not apply to the present case. 

The Pall Mall Gazette—We are not infuriated, nor are we excited, but we are partly astonished, 

partly amused, and also somewhat embarrassed, as when somebody else has committed a bad breach 

of decorum in public. We know it is not our fault, yet we feel awkward, and are disposed to blush. 

The Globe—Whether election exigencies lie behind the message of President Cleveland or not, it 

does not matter. A much more serious matter is the fact that the Chief Magistrate of the United 

States has distinctly pledged himself that if England refuses to abide by the award of a commission 

of arbitration, he will resort to warlike measures to enforce obedience to his will. 

The Liverpool Post says that when Secretary Olney’s letter in regard to Great Britain’s position in 

Venezuela reached Lord Salisbury last August the Premier saw the gravity of the situation. His first 

idea was to obtain the withdrawal or the letter by the American Secretary, but he did not make a 

formal request for its withdrawal, finding that it would be fruitless. 


- 124 - 

THE VENEZUELAN CORRESPONDENCE 

The correspondence accompanying the message of the President on the 17th inst. is printed in 

full in The Congressional Record, pages 204 to 212. It embraces a letter of Secretary of State Olney 

to Ambassador Bayard, July 20, 1895; a brief note to the Ambassador from the Acting Secretary of 

State. Mr. A. A. Adee, July 24; a letter of Lord Salisbury to Sir Julian Pauncefote, Nov. 26, 1895, and 

a second letter of the same date. 

Mr. Olney’s letter begins by the statement that “the President has given much anxious thought” 

to the subject treated, and “has not reached a conclusion without a lively sense of its great 

189

19 – 20 December 1895 

importance, as well as of the serious responsibility involved in any action now to be taken.” He then 

reviews briefly the history of the dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela touching the 

boundary between the latter and the colony of the former known as British Guiana. From the outset 

“the claims of both parties, it must be conceded, are of a somewhat indefinite nature.” On the one 

hand, Venezuela, though declaring her territorial limits to be those of “the Captaincy General of 

Venezuela in 1810,” contented herself with claiming the line of the Essequibo River. On the other 

band, Great Britain, claiming from Holland, “apparently remained indifferent as to the exact area 

of” her “colony until 1840,” when she commissioned Sir R. Schomburgk “to examine and lay down 

its boundaries.” To this line Venezuela declined to accede. “Since 1840 various other boundary lines 

have from time to time been indicated by Great Britain, but all as conventional lines – lines to which 

Venezuela’s assent has been desired, but which in no instance, it is believed, have been demanded as 

a matter of right. Thus neither of the parties is to-day standing for the boundary line predicated 

upon strict legal right—Great Britain having formulated no such claim at all, while Venezuela insists 

upon the Essequibo line only as a liberal concession to her antagonist.” 

Mr. Olney then traces the successive propositions made by Great Britain as to a boundary—the 

Aberdeen line of 1844 abandoning the coast from the mouth at the Moroco to the mouth of the 

Orinoco, where the Schomburgk line had ended, but including territory west of that line and further 

south; the Granville line of 1881, which struck the coast, about half way between the Moroco and 

the Orinoco; the Rosbery line of 1886, which swept in some 33,000 square miles west of the 

Granville line, including gold mines, and, finally, the Salisbury line of 1890 and the second Rosebery 

line of 1893, embracing the valleys of the Yurnan and the Yuruari and the mountains of Imataca and 

extensive auriferous regions. On the expansion of the British claims the letter of Mr. Adee cites the 

“British Colonial Office List, a Government publication”, which in 1885 stated of British Guiana: 

“It is impossible to specify the exact area of the colony, as its precise boundaries between Venezuela 

and Brazil respectively are undetermined, but it has been computed to be 76,000 square miles.” In 

1886 the same statement occurs, with the change of area to “about 109,000 square miles.” The maps 

in the two volumes are identical, but later maps “show a varying sweep of the boundary westward 

into what previously figured as Venezuelan territory.” The point of international importance in the 

comparison of these varying lines is not the inclusion of gold mines, but the insistence by Great 

Britain, after 1886, of the inclusion of the Island of Barima and the right bank of the great mouth of 

the Orinoco to the mouth of the Amacura, which in 1844, and even in 1881, she had been ready to 

abandon. 

Mr. Olney, after further tracing the stages of the controversy, sums up “the important features of 

the existing situation” as follows: 

1. The title to territory of indefinite but confessedly very large extent is in dispute between Great Britain on the 

one hand and the South American Republic of Venezuela on the other. 

2. The disparity in strength of the claimants is such that Venezuela can hope to establish her claim only through 

peaceful methods—through an agreement with her adversary either upon the subject itself or upon an arbitration. 

3. The controversy, with varying claims on the part of Great Britain, has existed for more than half a century, 

during which period many earnest and persistent efforts of Venezuela to establish a boundary by agreement have 

proved unsuccessful. 

4. The futility of the endeavor to obtain a conventional line being recognized, Venezuela for a quarter of a 

century has asked and striven for arbitration. 

5. Great Britain, however, has always and continuously refused to arbitrate, except upon the condition of a 

renunciation of a large part of the Venezuelan claim and of a concession to herself of a large share of the territory in 

controversy. 

190


6. By the frequent interposition of its good offices at the instance of Venezuela, by constantly urging and 

promoting the restoration of diplomatic relations between the two countries, by pressing for arbitration of the 

disputed boundary, by offering to act as arbitrator, by expressing its grave concern whenever new alleged instances 

of British aggression upon Venezuelan territory have been brought to its notice, the Government of the United 

States has made it clear to Great Britain and to the world that the controversy is one in which both its honor and its 

interests are involved, and the continuance of which it cannot regard with indifference.” 

The remainder of Mr. Olney’s letter is devoted to the consideration of the rights and duties of 

the United States, and with this portion our readers are already so far familiar that it does not now 

require extensive analysis. The following passage shows most clearly the decision of the 

Government of the United States as to what is not and what is involved in the American principle 

generally designated as the Monroe doctrine: 

“That America is in no part open to colonization, though the proposition was not universally admitted at the 

time of its first enunciation, has long been universally conceded. We are now concerned, therefore, only with that 

other practical application of the Monroe doctrine, the disregard of which by a European power is to be deemed an 

act of unfriendliness toward the United States. The precise scope and limitations of this rule cannot be too clearly 

apprehended. It does not establish any general protectorate by the United States over other American States. It does 

not relieve any American State from its obligations as fixed by international law, nor prevent any European power 

directly interested from enforcing such obligations or from inflicting merited punishment for the breach of them. It 

does not contemplate any interference in the internal affairs of any American State, or in the relations between it 

and other American States. It does not justify any attempt .on our part to change the established form or 

government of any American State or to prevent the people of such State from altering that form according to their 

own will and pleasure. The rule in question has but a single purpose and object. It is that no European power or 

combination of European powers shall forcibly deprive an American State of the right and power or selfgovernment 

and of shaping for itself its own political fortunes and destinies.” 

Mr. Olney reviews at some length the utterances of the American Government on various 

occasions with reference to this principle. He points out the consequences of adhering to it in the 

case of Mexico, in excluding Great Britain by the Clayton-Bulwer treaty “from occupying or 

exercising any dominion over any part of Central America,” and in justifying the position of the 

United States that “Cuba will not be permitted to become the possession of any other European 

country.” He indicates certain developments of the rule “apparently not necessarily required by 

either its letter or its spirit,” such as “the objection to arbitration of South American controversies 

by an European power.” And he submits that his enumeration demonstrates that the Venezuelan 

boundary controversy is in any view far within the scope and spirit of the rule as uniformly accepted 

and acted upon. 

After developing the argument as to the consequences of failing to apply this rule, Mr. Olney 

explains that the Venezuelan dispute may involve “the forcible assumption by an European power 

of political control over an American State,” which the United States is entitled and required to treat 

as an injury to itself.” 

“The political control at stake, too, is of no mean importance, but concerns a domain of great 

extent—the British claim, it will be remembered, apparently expanded in two years some 33,000 

square miles—and, if it also directly involves the command of the mouth of the Orinoco, is of 

immense consequence in connection with the whole river navigation of the interior of South 

America.” 

And Mr. Olney then states the logical necessity under which our Government asks for an 

arbitration of this dispute: 

191

19 – 20 December 1895 

“It is not admitted, however, and therefore cannot be assumed, that Great Britain is in fact usurping dominion 

over Venezuelan territory. While Venezuela charges such usurpation. Great Britain denies it, and the United States, 

until the merits are authoritatively ascertained, can take sides with neither. But while this is so—while the United 

States may not, under existing circumstances at least, take upon itself to say which of the two parties is right and 

which is wrong—it is certainly within its right to demand that the truth shall be ascertained. Being entitled to resent 

and resist any sequestration of Venezuelan soil by Great Britain, it is necessarily entitled to know whether such 

sequestration has occurred, or is now going on. Otherwise, if the United States is without the right to know and 

have it determined whether there is or is not British aggression upon Venezuelan territory, its right to protest against 

or repel such aggression may be dismissed from consideration.” 

The substance, then of the declaration of our Government is that the United States claims the 

right and, acknowledges the duty to see that justice is done to Venezuela in any controversy 

involving the political control of that State, and that in order that it may be fairly and fully 

determined what justice requires, it asks the Government of Great Britain to submit the boundary 

dispute to impartial arbitration. 

The reply of Lord Salisbury to Mr. Olney’s letter consists of two letters, each bearing date Nov. 

26, nearly four months after a copy was left with him by Mr. Bayard (Aug. 7). The longer of the two 

letters gives the British history of the Venezuelan dispute. He asserts that the title of Great Britain is 

derived from conquest and military occupation of the Dutch settlements in 1796, and that on this 

occasion and at the time of a previous occupation, in 1781, the “British authorities marked the 

western boundary of their possessions as beginning some distance up the Orinoco beyond Point 

Barima, in accordance with the limits claimed and actually held by the Dutch, and this has always 

since remained the frontier claimed by Great Britain.” 

He further declares that the “Government of Great Britain have from the first held the same 

view as to the extent of territory which they are entitled to claim as a matter of right. It comprised 

the coast line up to the River Amacura and the whole basin of the Essequibo River and its 

tributaries.” He states that any propositions to vary this boundary that have been made have been 

“concessions as a matter of friendship and conciliation” only. And he sums up the present position 

of the British Government as follows: 

“A portion of that claim [to the Essequibo and its tributaries] they have always been willing to 

waive altogether; in regard to another portion they have been and continue to be perfectly ready to 

submit the question of their title to arbitration. As regards the rest, that which lies within the socalled 

Schomburgk line, they do not consider that the rights of Great Britain are open to question.” 

He explains that concessions have lessened in extent because of the gradual spread of English 

settlements which her Majesty’s Government cannot surrender to foreign rule. 

The other and more direct answer to Mr. Olney’s letter by Lord Salisbury relates to the principle 

laid down by the Government of the United States and its application to the present question. He 

declares that the original Monroe doctrine cannot be made to cover the case; that, if it could, it is 

not accepted as a part of international law; he traverses the arguments by analogy used by Mr. Olney, 

and he states the actual position of the Government of Great Britain as follows: 

“They fully concur with the view which President Monroe apparently entertained, that any disturbance of the 

existing territorial distribution in that hemisphere by any fresh acquisitions on the part of any European State would 

be a highly inexpedient change. But they are not prepared to admit that the recognition of that expediency is clothed 

with the sanction which belongs to a doctrine of international law. They are not prepared to admit that the interests 

of the United States are necessarily concerned in every frontier dispute which may arise between any two of the 

States, who possess dominion in the Western Hemisphere, and still less can they accept the doctrine that the United 

192


States are entitled to claim that the process of arbitration shall be applied to any demand for the surrender of 

territory which one at those States may make against another.” 

We have here placed before our readers in as succinct manner as possible the essential points in 

the correspondence on which the message of the President on Dec. 17 was based. Practically the 

British Government, in denying to the United States the only means adequate to ascertain the full 

rights of Venezuela, which (and no more) the United States Government feels bound to protect, 

imposes upon that Government the duty of ascertaining those rights in the most thorough, careful, 

and impartial way remaining open. That is what the President has asked and received authority to 

do. It is a step which he was bound to propose, and which Congress, truly representing the Nation, 

has promptly empowered him to take. 


- 125 - 

TO STAND BY THE GOVERNMENT 

Venezuelan Revolutionary Junta Advised to Stop Hostilities 

A cablegram was received last night by the Venezuelan Revolutionary Junta advising that further 

hostilities against the Venezuelan Government cease. Charles C. Bolot, Secretary of the Junta in this 

city, has authorized the following statement: 

“This step has been precipitated by the vigorous message of President Cleveland in the Guiana 

controversy. I expected that such a course would be advised by Gen. Monagas and his friends just as 

soon as he learned what had happened. I cabled the facts to him the afternoon that the message was 

handed to Congress and the information reached him last night. He sent us instructions at once. He 

has not had time to instruct us in detail, and only directed us to stop all further operations. This step 

stops the revolution. We don’t care to say anything further beyond what has been said. We will aid 

the Government. 

Gen. Monagas and all his officers and men, arms, ammunition, dynamite, Hotchkiss gun, and 

other materials in the hands of the insurgents will be offered to the Crespo Government just as soon 

as England invades Venezuelan territory and fires upon the Venezuelan flag. If there is no war, and 

our National honor is not assailed, we reserve the right to settle our internal troubles, our local 

political differences, in any way we see fit. 

“In the event of war we will work in perfect harmony with the Government, and prove that the 

land of Bolivar is still in a position to duplicate its victory over another European monarchy. 

“In my opinion England has only three courses open to her: First, Lord Salisbury must resign or 

his Cabinet must go out. This would give England time to form a new Cabinet, which would have to 

go over the archives and study the question anew—this is an old British trick. Second, she can recall 

her Ambassador and meditate war. Third, and the most probable course, she may accept the studied 

lesson of justice which the United States has taught her.” 


193

19 – 20 December 1895 

- 126 - 

THE NEW VENEZUELAN MINISTRY 

Señor Andrade Announces Its Appointment to Secretary Olney 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19.—Señor Andrade, the Venezuelan Minister, was among Secretary 

Olney’s callers, this morning. While there was no special significance in the visit to-day, it being 

diplomatic reception day at the State Department, the Minister seized the opportunity to pay his 

respects and to thank Secretary Olney for the interest he had officially taken in the boundary 

dispute. Señor Andrade had received his weekly official mail just before going to the State 

Department, and was enabled to announce the formation of the new Venezuelan Cabinet which was 

formed by President Crespo Dec. 9. Its personnel is as follows: 

Foreign Relations—Dr. Pedro Ezequiel Rojas. 

War—Gen. Ramon Guerra. 

Treasury—Gen. Henrique Perez. 

Public Works—Dr. Claudio Brazual Serra. 

Interior—Dr. S. Francisco Castillo. 

Fomento—Gen. Francisco Tosta Garcia. 

Public Instruction—Dr. Frederico R. Chirinos. 

Of these Gen. Guerra. and Dr. Castlllo have continued in office during the Summer and are 

now reappointed. Gen. Garcia is transferred to the Department of Fomento from Governor of the 

Federal District, in which office he is succeeded by Gen. Estchan Ibarra Hervera. Dr. Rojas was 

Minister of Foreign Relations a year ago. He has had official charge of the boundary dispute for 

many years, and is considered one of the ablest diplomats in South America. 

Among other callers at the State Department this morning were Minister Lazo de Arriago of 

Honduras and Señor Dupuy de Lome, the Spanish Minister. Senators Lodge, Call, and Morgan also 

saw Secretary Olney. 


194


- Part 5 - 

21 - 23 December 1895 

195

21 – 23 December 1895 

196


- 127 - 

COMMENT IN RUSSIA 

A Suggestion of European Intervention in Case of War 

ST. PETERSBURG, Dec. 20.—Several of the St. Petersburg newspapers discuss the dispute 

between Great Britain and the United States, and profess to believe that the issue will be pacific. The 

Novosti says the present conflict interests the whole of Europe, and therefore the mediation of 

certain European powers, with a view of bringing about a peaceful settlement, would be opportune. 

The Novoe Vremya says: 

If it should come to a war between the United States and Great Britain, the latter would have to encounter 

internal as well as foreign foes, for the Irish would scarcely look passively on such a conflict. In that event, 

England’s affairs in Turkey and the far East would not wear so favorable an aspect as she might desire, and there 

would come an hour of bitter retribution for a past on which Englishmen pride themselves, forgetting successes 

gained by guile and force are never enduring. 


- 128 - 

COMMON SENSE IN ENGLAND 

A Judicious View of the Case in a London Newspaper 

WASHINGTON Dec. 20.—The State and Navy Departments have just received the latest 

issues one of the most important London marine journals, The Shipping World, in which several pages 

are devoted to adverse criticism of the English politicians who have denied to Venezuela the justice 

of arbitrating the boundary dispute. An appeal is made to the Government to consent to an 

honorable settlement of the controversy, with the interests of British politicians made subservient to 

those of British traders. The disastrous effects upon British commercial prosperity of a possible war 

with the United States are strongly emphasized. 

This influential English journal says: 

We have reached a crisis in our quarrel with the little republic of Venezuela. The collision between the outposts 

on the Yuruan River has served to bring to a head a controversy over boundaries which has lasted for a hundred 

years. Lord Salisbury has demanded apology and reparation, which will probably be made, not, perhaps, with 

heartiness and sincerity, but because President Crespo has neither army nor navy worth talking about, and must 

needs yield to superior force. The larger question of determining the boundaries between British Guiana and 

Venezuela will remain; and while we hope and believe it will be settled amicably, the controversy undoubtedly 

contains the elements of a possible war with the United States. 

The merits of the case have been practically abandoned on both sides of the Atlantic. The press of England is 

well nigh unanimous in supporting the contentions of Downing Street, and even The Times refers to the scene on 

the Yuruan as “British soil” while the press of the United States are equally unanimous in supporting the case of the 

republic. The man who invented the cry “My country, right or wrong,” did a poor turn for humanity but that mad 

principle is already supreme in this dispute. Day after day we read of “the line” of demarkation. This shows that few 

of those who discuss the question have taken the trouble to inform themselves concerning it. The official maps 

197

21 – 23 December 1895 

serve to show that there are many lines. And the President of Venezuela is in this peculiar position: When he retires 

at night, he does not know what the boundaries of his country may be when he wakes up in the morning. 

The editor of The Shipping World proceeds to recount the successive encroachments, which he 

calls “stealing,” and concludes as follows: 

We believe that this question will be settled without bloodshed, but we repeat that it contains elements that may 

lead to war with the United States. That, at all events, every jingo will admit, will be no child’s play. The policy 

foreshadowed by Washington, and formulated by James Monroe, from whom the doctrine has taken its name, is 

directed against the interposition of foreign powers in the affairs or the Spanish-American republics. The United 

States professes to believe in this doctrine in a still wider sense. To what extent they believe in it, we cannot say; nor 

are European powers compelled to accept the American version of the policy in government which should prevail 

in South America. But, from very shame, Congress will be obliged to stand by its resolution, and Senator Morgan, 

Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate, must maintain a show of consistency. A few weeks 

ago he said that the United States should not permit this aggression. He stated it as his belief that it is the purpose of 

Downing Street to push forward her frontier sufficiently far into the interior to encompass the rich gold fields of 

that section. And against this policy he would put the Monroe doctrine into operation. We have heard a great deal— 

too much for our taste—about this Monroe doctrine. It is something like the funds of a man whom we once saw 

playing cards for a stake, his part of which was supposed to be in a five-dollar bill in his pocket. When it as his turn 

to “put up” his money, he referred to the invisible note. And when he had lost all of the reputed value of the note, 

be walked away. 

The Monroe doctrine is referred to, but we never see it in operation. We care nothing in this crisis about 

political pretensions, even those of the first magnitude, involved in the American policy: but we care everything for 

the principle of international disputes. We have escaped a conflict of arms until now, because Venezuela is too small 

to fight. If our cause is a fair one, we have nothing to fear from arbitration. If we have behaved in a grasping and an 

arbitrary way, and have presumed upon our strength to set justice aside, we ought to be stopped in our unrighteous 

career. 

We scarce know where to turn—in Parliament or out of it—excepting to the ranks of a gallant band of Quakers 

in this country, for a man who is prepared to fight for peace. And we cannot help singing, “Oh, for one solid hour 

of John Bright.” 

These words come with extra force now that this country has taken action on the Venezuelan matter. 


- 129 - 

BISHOP DOANE IS EXCITED 

He Thinks the Talk About War with England Is Preposterous 

ALBANY, Dec. 20.—The Rev. William Crosswell Doane, Bishop of Albany, has prepared a 

long communication to the press in relation to the Venezuelan question. 

He says: 

The time is soon coming when an appeal to the sober judgment of men who have settled down from a wild 

excitement will be heard and heeded; and, perhaps, it will do no harm to make the appeal now. Does anybody 

believe that the enlargement of British possessions in South America is likely to affect a republican form of 

government in the United States? The question is too preposterous to be considered at all. The name of any man 

would be consigned to immortal infamy who succeeded in breaking the peace between England and America, either 

by refusing arbitration instead of war or in enforcing arbitration by means of war. 

198


As an American, I am especially concerned with the American condition, and the pain of it lies in the zest with 

which demagogues and half-Americanized foreigners, and, to a large extent, the press, hail the possibility of war 

with an unholy haste, before a commission had been even granted or appointed to ascertain whether the claim of 

Great Britain was right or wrong, and an enormous amount of money is proposed to be appropriated for war 

preparations.. It is time to protest against the haste, the appeal to prejudice, the recklessness and bravado of the 

whole American attitude, as well as against the hard and haughty assumption of the English view. I believe that 

neither of these conditions represents the thought, the purpose, or the feeling of either people. I venture to 

prophesy that somehow these empty vaporings will vanish into thin air, and no serious consequences will result, 

except the substitution of confidence and comity to the present feeling. 



- 130 - 

A Proper Subject for Arbitration 

It seems to me that Great Britain’s answer to the overtures of this Government for an 

arbitration of the differences between the claims of Great Britain and Venezuela is singularly 

inconsistent. 

When the principle of arbitration is approved it appears to be very illogical to say that such a 

method of settling international disputes does not apply to the present case, because Great Britain 

does not recognize the present aspect of the question as a dispute, though many years have elapsed 

since there was in fact a claim to certain territory by Great Britain, which the Venezuelan 

Government has disputed. 

Such an arbitration, or the propriety thereof, is not dependent upon an indisputable fact, but, 

upon a disputed fact, much less is it dependent upon the assumption that the claim of the stronger 

Government settles the question of right, however hostile to the claim of the weaker. If such were 

the test of arbitration, no case could ever arise for such a peaceable adjustment of international 

differences. 

It is not the purpose of this communication to review the action of the President or the 

propriety of his suggestions in the emergency, first, because it is not necessary, and, second, because 

the facts are not sufficiently known to me to justify any such attempt. Besides, upon Congress 

devolves the responsibility of acting in the premises. 

There is one concession in the President’s message from which I must dissent. Without 

considering whether the “Monroe doctrine” has been incorporated in or recognized as a part of 

international law, it certainly has become the settled policy of this Government, and I am inclined to 

go further than the President, and to hold, as has been well said, that “it was a notification to all 

European Governments that the United States would resent and resist any attempt they might make 

to extend the monarchical system to any part of this hemisphere not then subject to it.” This 

position, I think, we are bound to maintain, even against the consent of those Governments sought 

to be acquired. 

To illustrate my position: Suppose Turkey should by negotiation undertake to acquire Mexico, 

and to establish its inhuman, brutal, and despotic Government over that country, would Mexico’s 

199

21 – 23 December 1895 

consent justify our acquiescence in such a dangerous and hateful menace at our very doors? I think 

not. 

D. C. Calvin. 

New-York, Dec. 20, 1895. 


- 131 - 

DILKE INDORSES SALISBURY 

The American Claim Untenable—Effect of War on Trade 

PARIS, Dec. 20.—Sir Charles Dilke, M. P., who is in Paris, in an interview heartily approved the 

attitude assumed by Lord Salisbury, which, he said, was the only position he could adopt. 

Arbitration, he thought, was impossible, but between that and serious talk of war there was a long 

distance. The conquest of Canada by the United States was possible, but the cost and sacrifices 

would be similar to those incurred in the war of the rebellion, while the British fleet could destroy 

the commerce of America. 

Venezuela would be the first to suffer in the event of war. Her towns would quickly be destroyed 

by the British fleet before aid could arrive from the United States. 

As regarded the Monroe doctrine, Sir Charles thought it was a very legitimate expression of the 

feelings of the American people. He had no doubt the various American republics would unite to 

prevent the introduction of European militarism or European intervention in their affairs, but it was 

clearly understood that France, Holland, and Great Britain, having territory in America, would not 

agree with the United States on this point. 

Gil Blas publishes a report at an interview with H. Vignaud, First Secretary of the United States 

Embassy. Mr. Vignaud expressed regret that the French press should have made the error of 

deducing fantastic conclusions from the message. He did not think that France, whose interests were 

opposed to those of England everywhere, would favor Great Britain, especially as France had not 

opposed the aims of the United States anywhere. Mr. Vignaud said he felt certain that the United 

States would not yield, but that Great Britain, which had everything to lose in a war, would give way. 

War, be said, would mean that Canada would become part of the United States and that English 

trade would be destroyed within a month following the outbreak of hostilities. A few shells thrown 

into an open port would cost England dear. There was no doubt in his mind, he said, that in the 

event of war France would take advantage of the occasion to settle the question in regard to Egypt 

and Siam, while Russia would advance her interests in India. 

The Gaulois publishes an interview with Count Chaudordy, in which he expresses the opinion 

that England has found her master in arrogance. He thought that the Monroe doctrine applied to 

North America, not to South America. 


200


- 132 - 

LONDON’S WEEKLY PRESS AROUSED 

Seriousness of the Situation Recognized, but Danger Not Feared 

LOBNON, Dec. 20.—The weekly press of London devotes much space to a discussion of the 

situation between Great Britain and the United States. Among the comments are the following: 

The Spectator—The event and the document are of grave importance. It is difficult for 

Englishmen to conceive circumstances under which they would willingly go to war with the United 

States. At the present moment such a war would seem to Englishmen peculiarly horrible, owing to 

the permanent complications in Europe and the desire, in which the statesmen of the American 

Union share, to rescue the people of Armenia from bloodthirsty tyranny. It is clear, however, that 

the dominant party in the Untied States puts forward pretensions to which no self-respecting power 

could possibly submit. As Mr. Cleveland puts the matter, in language, the stateliness and force of 

which we fully acknowledge: 

“While it is a grievous thing to contemplate the two great English-speaking peoples of the world 

as being otherwise than friendly competitors in the onward march to civilization and strenuous and 

worthy rivals in all the arts of peace, there is no calamity which a great nation can invite which equals 

that which follows a supine submission to wrong and injustice and the consequent loss of national 

self-respect and honor, beneath which is shielded and defended a people’s safety and greatness.” 

The message is an extraordinary expansion of the Monroe doctrine. To submit to it is to confess 

that we regard our American possessions as no longer independent. Nobody here dreams of 

menacing the United States; nobody here has the faintest idea of conquering, colonizing, or claiming 

any fresh portion of either of the two Americas, and nobody disputes the right of the United States 

to defend any State in America which she may it think proper, in her interests, to defend. All we 

maintain is that we are entitled to protect against Spanish aggression frontiers which we believe are 

unquestionably ours, and which the people of the United States, if Guiana were theirs, would 

similarly defend. 

We are not even defending them against the United States, whose nearest territory is 1,200 miles 

distant, but against a turbulent little Spanish State, which was born after we made our settlement in 

Guiana, and, therefore, is in no way assailed, menaced, or injured by our action. 

The Tablet—There is danger lest, in the natural resentment caused by the manner of President 

Cleveland’s message, we may overlook the sentiment and line of reasoning beneath, which so 

warmly commends it to the hearts of the American people. The Americans have seen how another 

continent has been parceled out, how the doctrine of the hinterland has been pressed, and how 

certain it is that all of the Old World quarrels, rivalries, and frontier disputes will soon be reproduced 

upon the soil of Africa. 

The Monroe doctrine may not be a part of any code of international law, but it is a part of the 

settled policy of the United States, and that is within the knowledge of all the world. 

It is irrelevant to contend that our right to the territory within the Schomburgk line is too clear 

for dispute, since the fact remains that it is disputed and has been disputed for years. 

The Saturday Review—Sensible people on both sides of the water recognize that President 

Cleveland has played Dogberry to no purpose. He has written himself down an ass, and that is about 

201

21 – 23 December 1895 

all he has accomplished. Mr. Cleveland’s message shows how far a man who in the main is able and 

upright, is compelled to stoop to-day in order to reach the prize of political popularity in the United 

States. 

The Speaker (Gladstonian)—We have no reason to thank Mr. Cleveland that the peace of the 

world is not disturbed by the incredible crime of war between England and the United States. He 

has brought the two countries into a position of such extreme danger and difficulty that only the 

good sense and the good feeling that are at the root of the character of the two peoples can be 

trusted to avert a fatal collision. Who is responsible for bringing the two countries to the point of 

contemplating a struggle which would ruin both for a generation? Not England. Has she shown any 

disposition to trespass upon the rights of the people of the United States? Has she failed in the 

usages of diplomatic courtesy? No fair-minded American dare answer in the affirmative. If Lord 

Salisbury had willfuly provoked public feeling in America, it would not have been left to the 

Americans to rebuke and punish him. 

We are not among the adherents or Lord Salisbury, but we must affirm that we fail to find in his 

dispatches a single line to which reasonable Americans can object. The trumpery question of 

Venezuela which is made the excuse for Mr. Cleveland’s shrill challenge, is in itself the merest 

subterfuge. The manoeuvre may succeed as a party stratagem for securing Mr. Cleveland’s election 

for himself or his nominee, but be will .have bought his triumph at a price which few men would 

care to pay. There is no need to discuss the monstrous pretensions contained in President 

Cleveland’s message and Secretary Olney’s dispatch. If they mean anything, they mean that notice to 

quit the New World is served in the rudest manner upon Great Britain. Surely, Mr. Cleveland must 

know that a great power will not accept such a notice until she has exhausted all of the resources at 

her command for resisting aggression, which, if successful, would destroy her status before the 

world. 

The Economist—There is no excuse for a panic. Ample time will be occupied in negotiations, 

during which public opinion in both countries will grow cool. In the meantime, there is nothing to 

be gained by discussing, as the daily newspapers do, President Cleveland’s action, party politics, and 

wish for popularity. The influences of all Governments are dependent upon the mass of the vote, 

and there is no satisfaction in hearing that the American masses are so hostile to Great Britain and 

that all the parties are trying each to outstrip the others in the race of Jingoism. We see really no 

evidence that the American people are so penetrated with Jingoism as to desire to absorb unwilling 

Canada, much less to fight for the West Indies, with its addition to the colored population of the 


The Government, with its usual disregard of diplomatic forms, has said a little more than it 

means; that it is vexed by our refusal to arbitrate, and that its governing idea rather is to compel us 

to arbitrate than to make itself the sole in America. President Cleveland’s message was written like a 

dispatch preceding war, but it isn’t addressed to the world, or to England, but only to the people of 

the United States. 

The other weekly prints treat the subject in much the same vein. 


202


- 133 - 

FREE TRADERS HESITATE 

The New-England Club Demands Time to Consider the Message 

BOSTON, Dec. 20.—The New-England Free Trade League, at a banquet to-night, adopted 

resolutions relative to the Venezuelan controversy. President Lamb of the league indorsed 

Ambassador Bayard’s recent Edinburgh speech. His remarks were applauded, as was his reference to 

“the present hysterical craze for war.” The Venezuelan resolutions adopted were as follows: 

The recent message of President Cleveland has proposed to Congress that unless Great Britain shall surrender 

her claim to all lands which we may find, upon inquiry, belong to Venezuela, we shall resist her aggression by every 

means in our power. 

Before our people are required to sacrifice their lives and their property in this war, we hope they will be given 

time to reflect upon certain material facts. 

1. We have no treaty, offensive or defensive with Venezuela. We have assumed no protectorate over her. We 

are under no obligations, express or implied, to fight her battles for her. There can be no valid ground for our 

interference in the present dispute unless the alleged encroachments of Great Britain upon Venezuela are, in the 

words of President Monroe, “dangerous to our peace and safety.” 

2. The disputed territory could not be used by Great Britain as a base of military operations against this country. 

It has no good harbors. It is a thousand miles away from our nearest coast. Without this, Great Britain has St. Lucia, 

Bermuda, Halifax, Vancouver. 

3. Annexation of the disputed territory to a British colony would not be an assault on our political system. Next 

to ourselves, Great Britain and her colonies best exemplify the working of free institutions. The most potent 

argument against such institutions is furnished by the turbulent republics of Central and South America. 

Fourth – The controversy between Great Britain and Venezuela does not threaten our foreign trade. Under the 

so-called “reciprocity” clause of the McKinley tariff, we had no difficulty in making a satisfactory commercial 

agreement with Great Britain as to her West India colonies, including British Guiana, but Venezuela refused to 

make those concessions which our Government demand, and, in consequence, President Harrison exercised the 

power of retaliation conferred upon him by that act. 

Fifth – We have told Great Britain that she must submit her boundary dispute to arbitration. But we have not 

offered to submit to arbitration the question whether we have any interest in that dispute which can by any 

possibility justify an armed intervention. 

The resolutions were adopted by a vote of 39 to 15. 

Other resolutions were adopted indorsing the sentiments of Ambassador Bayard, as expressed in 

his Edinburgh speech. 


- 134 - 

ENGLAND STILL STUBBORN 

London Newspapers Continue to Put on Bold Fronts 

JEER AT THE MONROE DOCTRINE 

Profess to Have Information that There Has Been a Revulsion in 

Feeling in This Country 

203

21 – 23 December 1895 

LONDON, Dec. 20.—All of the morning newspapers to-morrow will continue their discussions 

of the Venezuela matter. 

The Morning Post will contend that events have shown that dislike and envy of England are 

imbedded deeply in popular feeling in the United States, and suggests that it would be worth while 

to reflect whether a position that is regarded with such jealousy by a proud and successful nation is 

not worth making same sacrifices to maintain. The paper says that, whatever the purpose for which 

Mr. Olney has written, it has aroused feelings which cannot be dispersed by any mere calculation of 

electioneering chances. Public passions may force Mr. Cleveland to maintain his hostile attitude 

toward England. All sober people see that perseverance in the line adopted must lead to war. 

The Graphic will suggest that it is possible to honorably settle the dispute by arbitration solely on 

the question as to whether the Monroe doctrine is applicable to the Venezuelan question. 

The Daily News, basing its statement on its own reports from New-York will insist that there has 

been an entire revulsion of feeling there, owing to the panic in Wall Street. It contends that 

President Cleveland has inflicted a heavier injury on his own country than upon Great Britain by 

striking a blow at the public credit just as it was recovering from the effects of the collapse caused by 

the Sherman act. Continuing its argument, it says: 

Mr. Cleveland will find no bond issues or withdrawal of notes so effectual as the assurance of peace. He must 

now be conscious of his mistake. He will be able to some extent to repair it by replying to Lord Salisbury in a tone 

more befitting the head of a great Nation, than that adopted in his unhappy message. He will find the British 

Government and people entirely disposed to forget his hot words, and to help him repair the damage they have 

done. 

The Standard predicts that before many days there will be a striking revulsion of popular 

sentiment in the United States. The American mind, it says, is clear and logical, and Americans fully 

share with the British in what they both call love of fair play. It adds: 

We feel confident that a vast majority of the Americans will soon be profoundly sorry for what Mr. Cleveland 

has done. He has travestied and damaged a principle that they hold dear, and has made the Republic which we have 

all honored on account of its supposed attachment to peace and non-intervention, figure in the eyes of Europe as a 

gratuitously aggressive and reckless champion of war. Englishmen are well aware of the difficulty many Americans 

must feel in reconciling patriotism with a frank disavowal of Mr. Cleveland’s attitude, but we can join in all sincerity 

in the prayer offered by the Chaplain of the Senate. 

The Times will say: 

The President’s second message is almost as remarkable in its own way as his first. With an air of the utmost 

innocence he takes note of a panic that he himself originated in precisely the tone that would be appropriate to the 

discussion of a calamity due to causes beyond human control. 

We see, he says in effect, how urgent is the necessity for the financial reforms he has vainly advocated, when 

such a trifle as a threat of war against Great Britain suffices to have disorganized Wall Street. 

It is doubtful from the terms of the message whether he now wishes it to be understood that his Venezuelan 

policy was designed simply to give an object lesson to finance, or whether he merely turns to account a catastrophe 

that be did not foresee. 

Business men in the United States will not derive much consolation from this anxious appeal for a way to 

escape the natural consequences of the president’s action, nor will the numerous opponents of his financial policy 

regard with anything but distrust and resentment the attempt to rush it under the cover of an artificial foreign 

complication. 

204


The Chronicle will say: 

Yesterday’s message must induce the American people to think deeply over the needlessness of Tuesday’s bolt 

from the blue. It must appear to the most alert American patriot that the sudden apprehension and timidity of 

business circles was due to the inevitable alarm into which the whole commercial world was suddenly thrown by the 

new foreign policy of the United States. The second message is virtually a counterblast, for it appeals to facts, not 

prejudices, and presents real, not imaginary, perils. 

In its issue to-morrow The Standard will mention a rumor that the Rothschilds will immediately 

withdraw £5,000,000 from the United States. 


- 135 - 

PASSAGE OF THE BILL 

The Senate Unanimous for the Appointment of a Commission 

WASHINGTON. Dec. 20.—The first words on the Venezuelan question in the Senate to-day 

were spoken by Mr. Milburn, the blind Chaplain who prayed: 

As the time draws near the period of Christmas, inaugurated by the angels singing “Glory to God in the highest; 

on earth peace to men of good will,” we pray that the spirit of the season may enter in our hearts and minds and 

may keep us in the knowledge and love of God and of His son. Jesus Christ, our Saviour. 

Forbid that the two foremost nations of the world which bear the name of Christian, with one language, one 

faith, one baptism, one Lord, shall be embroiled in war with all its horrors and barbarianisms. 

Grant, we beseech Thee, that we mar be saved from imbruing our hands in each others blood. Let the spirit of 

justice and magnanimity prevail among the rulers of both nations and among the people, the kindred people, of the 

two lands, so that all differences and difficulties may be amicably and righteously settled, and that God’s name may 

be glorified in the establishment of concord, amity and brotherly kindness. 

May this become an august and memorable Christmas in the history of the English-speaking world and of the 

whole earth. 

Let health, brotherly kindness, and charity pervade all our land and our motherland. 

And may God be glorified and the reign of Jesus Christ, our Saviour, be established, we humbly pray Thee, in 

His sacred name. Amen. 

Ordered the Prayer Printed 

At the suggestion of Mr. Mitchell, (Rep., Oregon,) unanimous consent was given to the printing 

in The Record of this invocation by the Chaplain. 

After the introduction and reference of numerous bills, Mr. Mitchell (Rep., Oregon,) offered a 

resolution instructing the Finance Committee to incorporate into any revenue bill that may come to 

that committee from the House of Representatives, a provision imposing duties on wool – in three 

several classes. The resolution was laid on the table, as Mr. Mitchell gave notice of his desire to 

address the Senate on the subject. 

Mr. Chandler (Rep., N.H.,) offered a resolution, which was agreed, calling on the Secretary of the 

Treasury for a statement showing, during each of the last five years and for the whole period, the 

205

21 – 23 December 1895 

gross amount of imports from and exports to, ports of Great Britain, her colonies, and 

dependencies, with the number of entries of British vessels into American ports and their gross 

tonnage. 

Allen Harangues the Senate 

The resolution offered yesterday by Mr. Allen (Pop., Neb.,) directing the Finance Committee to 

inquire into the advisability of opening our mints to the free coinage of silver and the issue of 

Treasury notes to provide for the contingency of war between the British Empire and the United 

States of America, was taken up, and Mr. Allen proceeded to deliver what he evidently considered 

some very caustic remarks at the expense of the President and his supporters on both sides of the 

Chamber. He said that he could conceive of no sufficient cause for the delivery of the President’s 

message. There did not seem to be any demand for it. 

It occurred to him that the President, having lost the confidence of the people, to some extent, 

during the administration of the last two years and nine months, was seeking to restore himself and 

his party to that confidence, and thus induce the people to forget the business conditions of the 

country. 

Mr. Allen referred to the bill recently introduced by Mr. Hill, (Dem., N.Y.,) to enable ex- 

Confederate officers to be commissioned as officers in the army or navy of the United States; the 

one introduced by Mr. Chandler (Rep., N.H.,) far an appropriation of $100,000,000 for rifles and 

cannon, and the two introduced by Mr. Hale, (Rep., Me.,) for an increase of the navy and for a 

reconstruction of the United States ship Constitution, as so many proofs of the war spirit in the 

Senate. 

He suggested that, on the Democratic side, there was an attempt to sustain the President for the 

splendid services of himself and his Secretary of the Treasury in the late political campaigns in New- 

York, Maryland, and Kentucky. 

Populists Must Take a Stand 

It was necessary, Mr. Allen thought, for the Populist Party to take a stand in the matter. It would 

not do, he said, to permit the President of the United States and his distinguished associates in the 

Senate to carry off all the glory and honor. It would not do to permit the Democratic Party and the 

Republican Party in the Senate to take off all the glory and honor incident to the Monroe doctrine. It 

was necessary that the Populist Party should have a standing in the matter. Realizing that fact, the 

resolution had been prepared, as money was essential to war. 

Mr. Platt (Rep., Conn.,) moved to refer the resolution to the Committee on Finance, and the 

motion was defeated – yeas 24, nays 36, as follows: 

Yeas—Messrs. Allison, Brice, Burrows, Caffery, Cameron, Chandler, Gallinger, Gorman, Hale, 

Hawley, Lodge, McMillan, Martin, Mills, Mitchell (Wis.,) Morrill. Platt, Proctor. Quay, Sewell, 

Sherman, Smith, Thurston, and Wetmore – 24. 

Nays—Messrs. Allen, Bacon, Baker, Bate, Berry, Blackburn, Butler, Call, Carter, Chilton, Clark, 

Cockrell, Dubois, Gibson, Harris, Jones (Ark.), Jones (Nev.), Kyle, Mantle, Mitchell (Oregon), 

Morgan, Nelson, Pasco, Peffer, Perkins, Pettigrew, Pritchard, Roach, Stewart, Tuller, Tillman, Vest, 

Voorhees, Walthall, Warren, and Wilson – 36. 

The resolution was agreed to, Mr. Allen having withdrawn the preamble. It now reads: 

206


Resolved, That the Committee on Finance do, and they are hereby directed and instructed to inquire, and 

report, by bill or otherwise, whether it would not be expedient and proper for the Government of the United States 

of America, at this time, to open its mints to the free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at the ratio of 1 to 16, 

and, in addition thereto, issue an adequate volume of full legal tender Treasury notes in the same manner such notes 

have heretofore been issued, and in the interest of National safety withdraw the issue power of National banks, and 

retire all bank currency. 

The Commission Bill Taken Up 

The Vice President laid before the Senate the House bill appropriating $100,000 for the expenses 

of the commission to inquire and report on the true divisional line between the Republic of 

Venezuela and British Guiana, and it was read a second time. 

Mr. Morgan, (Dem., Ala.), Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, asked and 

obtained unanimous consent to have the bill considered in the Senate immediately. The committee 

he said had had the matter under consideration, and had instructed him to report it back with 

amendments in the nature of a substitute. 

The substitute was read, its principal difference from the House bill being that it fixed the 

number of Commissioners at three, and required that they should be appointed by and with the 

consent of the Senate. 

Mr. Platt (Rep., Conn.,) said he differed from the conclusions of the committee with great 

diffidence, and he rose to speak upon the subject with a good deal of embarrassment. His opinion 

was very decided that the Senate had better not amend the House bill, but pass it as it came over; 

and in that view he understood that the Chairman of the committee concurred. 

Better Not to Talk War 

It was useless, he said, to deny that this was a very grave and important subject; but in its 

consideration Senators ought not to talk about war. Senators did not invite war. They deprecated it. 

There was no reason, at present, to suppose that war was to be precipitated. The American people 

would not shun it, however, if it became inevitable. 

All Senators, he thought, concurred with the President. There might be something in the 

message which he would have preferred to have otherwise; but as far as it was a statement of the 

position and determination of the American people on the great subject, there was no difference of 

opinion. No matter whether the Monroe doctrine were called a doctrine or a canon of international 

law, the American people were determined to sustain it. 

It was admitted, Mr. Platt continued, that Senators were not in possession of the facts involved 

in the controversy. Therefore the proposed commission was to be appointed. Any amendment of 

the House bill would be considered in England as a hesitation on the part of the Senate to sustain 

the President in his position. And, therefore, unless it became absolutely necessary to amend the bill, 

the Senate should refrain from doing so in order that the attitude of the Senate might not be 

misunderstood in England. 

There seemed to be an opinion on the other side of the water that this assertion of American 

rights and of the American determination to sustain those rights, was a campaign idea, and that it 

was put forth at this time for political effect. 

“England,” said Mr. Platt, emphatically, “must be disabused of any such opinion or belief as that. 

The American people were never more in earnest, from the breaking out of the Revolution to this 

207

21 – 23 December 1895 

day than in the determination to assert and maintain what they believe to be essential to the safety of 

the Republic. The Senate must be careful, then, to do nothing here that would give plausibility to the 

already prevalent idea in England that the United States was not united and in earnest about this 

matter. 

The Money Consideration 

Mr. Mills (Dem., Texas) said that it appeared to him that the most important consideration 

connected with the whole subject had been utterly overlooked in both houses and that was the 

money consideration. Where were the revenues to be obtained? 

How was the Government to get money enough to carry on the war and to carry it on 

successfully? A conflict with Great Britain would be no child’s play, and the mistake of underrating 

it should not be committed. It might be, as the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Sherman, thought, there 

would be no war. Mr. Mills’s own voice was for peace, but for peace honorable and consistent with 

the safety and dignity of the people of the United States. 

“But,” Mr. Mills continued, “the American Government and the British Government have 

arrived at a point, after a long discussion, where both say that they will not yield, and the President 

says that we ought to resist with all the means in our power. 

“Certainly, then, we are standing face to face on the very edge of battle, and prudence and safety 

demand that we should look to our treasure box and see where we are to obtain the money to carry 

on this great struggle.” 

In developing this idea Mr. Mills argued that the first course to be taken was an amendment of 

the Constitution legalizing an income tax, and he suggested that a joint resolution proposing such an 

amendment should be passed and sent to the State Legislatures. 

Not an Electioneering Dodge 

Mr. Lodge (Rep., Mass.,) said that yesterday he had given notice of amendments, but he should 

not offer them to-day, because he thought it of the utmost importance that there should be 

absolutely no division whatever in the Senate on any question involving the support of the President 

in the position he had taken. As to the English idea that the whole thing was an electioneering 

business, he wanted to see that idea done away with. He wanted to make it understood that there 

was no division of sentiment among the American people. 

And he wanted, by the action of the Senate to-day, to say plainly to those people in London who 

were undertaking to make a scare in this country by selling stocks and calling loans in the American 

market, that the American people were united on this question, that they purposed to stand by it, 

and that the attempt to create a panic in Wall Street by calling loans and draining gold was not the 

road to honorable and peaceful settlement. [Applause in the galleries.] 

Mr. Stewart (Pop., Nev.) said the sentiment in the United States in favor of the Monroe doctrine 

was practically unanimous. 

He accused England of various attempts to irritate the United States in the matter of Alaska, of 

slaughtering seals, and of the seizure of Corinto, in Nicaragua. And he declared that it was this 

English arrogance which had aroused the feelings of the American people. 

“Great Britain,” be exclaimed, vehemently, “can put an end to it by being honest and 

reasonable.” [Renewed applause in the galleries which was promptly suppressed by the Vice President.] 

208


Not a Very Large War Cloud 

Mr. White (Dem.. Cal.,) said he could not bring himself to believe that there was the serious 

menace to peace which Senators supposed. He concurred in everything that had been said as to the 

necessity of firmly and rigidly and at all times enforcing the Monroe doctrine. But he was persuaded 

that if on a careful and judicial investigation the facts were made patent to the world there would be 

no difficulty as to an honorable solution. He could not understand that there was reason to 

apprehend immediate difficulty. The war cloud did not seem to him to be very large. 

Mr. Mitchell (Rep., Oregon,) asked Mr. White to give his construction at the Monroe doctrine; 

and he put the case of Venezuela ceding the disputed territory to Great Britain, and asked whether 

such cession would be in conflict with the Monroe doctrine. 

Mr. White declined to discuss that point as not being involved in the controversy. 

Mr. Mitchell answered his own question by stating that the true construction of the Monroe 

doctrine to be that no European power shall be permitted either by force or treaty to acquire one 

foot of soil which it does not now own on the Western hemisphere. 

Caffery Urges Caution 

Mr. Caftery (Dem., La.,) said that he heartily concurred in Senator Sherman’s opinion that the 

Senate should pursue a conservative course of action. If war should ensue between the United States 

and Great Britain out of this controversy, the responsibility for it would rest on the Senate and 

House of Representatives. The President might precipitate War, but Congress was the war-making 

power, and, therefore, he argued that the Senate should supervise the appointment of the 

commission. Continuing, he said: 

What need is there of haste? Is our honor suffering? Is our frontier invaded? Are not our ships permitted to 

plow the ocean unmolested? Wherein are we assailed? The very appointment of this commission is a warlike step. It 

is a very extreme application of the Monroe doctrine. But even that step—which, in my opinion, is a forecast of 

war—may not lead to the dire conclusion of war, if temperate and wise counsels are followed afterward. 

I know something of the horrors and devastation of war; but if the occasion demands war, if the honor or the 

interests or the United States are so insulted or infringed upon as to make a call to arms necessary, I would not 

hesitate, on account of the financial condition of the United States, to enter into war, and I believe that the people 

would respond to the call of patriotism. 

It occurs to me, however, knowing the terrors of war, knowing the upheaval that will follow from a conflict 

between these two vast powers, that we ought not to be precipitate or hasty. Let us give a breathing time. The 

people of the United States are excited, and members of Congress are excited on this question. Taking counsel of 

my prudence, I consider it wise and just that the House bill shall be amended as suggested by the Senator from 

Ohio. 

Chandler Wants Prompt Action 

Mr. Chandler (Rep., N.H.) said that he had yesterday thought it wise to have the bill amended, 

but to-day he did not think so. He believed that it was of the highest National importance that the 

bill should pass the Senate to-day exactly as it came from the House of Representatives. The 

President of the United States had risen above party and had shown himself to be patriotic and an 

American. Inspired by the genius of Massachusetts which pervaded the State Department, the 

President had taken American ground, from which America would never recede. He was in favor of 

209

21 – 23 December 1895 

meeting the President on that ground, and he asked whether there was a Democratic Senator or a 

Republican Senator in favor of doing anything in this matter in order to promote party interests. He 

did not believe there was. 

The President had done his best to remove the question from the domain of American politics, 

and should not the people of the country, he asked, without distinction of party, respond to the 

President’s effort and sustain his hand in every particular. 

He understood that Wall Street and State Street were greatly agitated because a Democratic 

President, sustained by a Republican Congress, proposed to defend the National honor. It struck 

him, however, that if stocks had gone down they were stocks that ought to go down, irrespective of 

National complications. 

And he undertook to say that no valuable American stock would be seriously affected because 

American honor had been preserved in this crisis of its affairs. He did not propose to be intimidated 

by any conspiracy of foreign capitalists to destroy American credit. 

In this connection Mr. Chandler read from a London dispatch giving the facts of a meeting of 

English capitalists in London called for the purpose of considering the advisability of united action 

(“united action,” he repeated, with emphasis), in calling off their American credits. He also repeated 

from the dispatch the sentence: “There were no defenders of the President present.” 

A Characteristic Fling 

“Alas,” said Mr. Chandler, “has it come to this? I ask the other side of the chamber to consider 

the fact that their President, who has done more for English interests than any President who ever 

sat in the White House, has now fallen so low that there are none to do him reverence. 

“On the contrary,” continued Mr. Chandler, quoting still further from the dispatch, “he was 

denounced unsparingly, and his conduct was described by several as insane.” 

Mr. Allen (Pop., Neb.,) wanted to know whether any of the Rothschilds were present at that 

meeting. 

Mr. Chandler replied that there were no names mentioned. 

“Does the Senator believe,” Mr. Allen asked, “that If the application of the Monroe doctrine 

were not only to keep Great Britain out of the Venezuelan territory, but were also to result in the 

withdrawal of the British capital invested in the United States in the form of stocks and bonds, he 

would still sustain the Monroe doctrine?” 

“I am willing,” Mr. Chandler replied, laughingly, “with the Senator from Nebraska, to arrange 

American finances independently of England; but, one thing at a time.” 

Tillman Asks a Question 

“If the Senate passes this bill,” Mr. Tillman (Dem., S.C.,) asked, “and if the result shall be that 

the gold reserve shall disappear, and that the country gets on the silver basis, as is threatened, would 

you still vote for the bill?” 

“It is the tendency of our Populistic friends,” Mr. Chandler replied, “to mix up questions.” 

[Laughter.] 

“I beg your pardon,” Mr. Tillman said, “I want it understood that I am not a Populist. If I am 

not a Democrat, there is no Democrat here. [Laughter.] Will you answer my question?” 

210


“I will vote,” Mr. Chandler exclaimed, “for any sacrifice, even for the resolution of the Senator 

from Nebraska [Mr. Allen]—which is a concrete absurdity—if necessary to protect the National 

honor.” 

“Well. Sir, we join hands,” was Mr. Tillman’s rejoinder. 

Mr. Turple (Dem., Ind.,) made an impassioned speech in favor of the assertion of the Monroe 

doctrine, and exclaimed, in a remark as to the river Esequibo being one of the boundary lines of the 

disputed territory: “We now pass the Rubicon, and can never recede without dishonor.” He also 

said: 

We did not assume guardianship over the South American republics. The guardianship has been cast on us by 

the force of political gravitation. Our primacy among the republics or the American hemisphere and among the 

Governments of the world has thrown upon us the guardianship of those republics. We cannot avoid it. We 

cannot evade it. It belongs to that class or duties comprised in the maxim “Noblesse oblige.” 

Mr. Call (Dem, Fla.) gave it as his opinion that there was no possibility of war as the enlightened 

sentiment of nations of the world forbade war on the question. 

What if the Stocks Go Down? 

Mr. Teller (Rep., Col.) expressed his regret that the President had not settled the question of a 

commission, as he might have done, without sending it to Congress. He (Mr. Teller) was not 

frightened by the little financial disturbances in London and New York. Suppose stocks did fall. 

That was a matter which the American people did not care much about. He understood that railroad 

stocks had fallen 4 percent to-day. He did not care if they fell 50 percent. That would not effect the 

country generally—only a few speculators. But the English would not sell American stocks. That 

was a bluff on their part. Mr. Teller also read from the dispatch already quoted by Mr. Chandler, and 

paused the phrase “Its deluded Chief Magistrate.” He also read this question: “The meeting finally 

resolved to postpone any action until it became clear to what extent the President’s course 

represents the will of the American people.” 

“And,” added Mr. Teller, “when they have gone through the files of the American press and 

listened to the voice of the American people, if sending back our securities depends upon the 

support we shall give to the President, they will send back these securities in a mass.” 

Passage of the Bill 

This closed the debate. On motion of Mr. Chandler, (Rep., N.H.,) the proposed amendments to 

the House bill were laid on the table; and the bill was read a third time and progressed to the point 

where the question was on its passage. 

An offer of amendment was made by Mr. Caffery, (Dem., La.,) who was informed by the 

presiding officer (Mr. Harris. Dem., Tenn.) that the bill had gone beyond the point where any 

amendments could be offered. 

The presiding officer then put the question, “Shall the bill pass?” and, as the votes (viva voce) 

were all “Aye,” and not one “No.” he declared that the House bill was passed, without amendment. 

The Senate then, at 3:45, proceeded to executive business: and when the doors were opened, at 

4:30, the presiding officer laid before the Senate the President’s message, asking that no recess be 

211

21 – 23 December 1895 

taken until after financial legislation necessary to preserve the credit of the Government had been 

enacted. 

“I move that the Senate do now adjourn.” said Mr. Cockrell, (Dem., Mo.,) as soon as the reading 

of the message was concluded. 

“Why,” said Mr. Hawley, (Rep., Conn.,) with real or affected surprise, “I expected that some 

serious consideration would be given to this most important message of the President by our 

Democratic friends.” 

“We want time to consider it,” Mr. Cockrell bluntly rejoined. 

The Senate adjourned until to-morrow. 


- 136 - 

ENGLAND WARNED BEFORE 

Her Attitude Toward Venezuela Was Changed Seven Years Ago. 

THE ACTION THEN OF MR. CLEVELAND 

Called Forth a Letter of Praise from Fr. Antonio Silva— 

President Would Not Permit Its Being Used In Campaign 

In an article printed in The New-York Times Oct. 21 last, it was demonstrated, from an 

examination of President Cleveland’s previous record on the Venezuelan issue and also from an 

analysis of the merits of the controversy between Venezuela and England, that the country was 

probably on the eve of diplomatic developments which would easily prove “the most embarrassing 

that the State Department had had to deal with since the war.” Among the observations made by the 

writer, W. W. Spooner, was the following: 

“As an instance of the President’s earnest and recognized sentiments in the Venezuelan matter, it 

is known to some of his friends that there is in the possession of a gentleman in this city a letter of 

great significance written by the Chargé d’Affaires of Venezuela in the United States, in 1888, highly 

lauding him as the forceful and never yielding friend of Venezuela in her difficulty with Great 

Britain. At the time of the Sackville-West incident and the Presidential message of 1888, this letter 

was placed at the disposal of the Democratic National Committee, and Mr. Brice anxiously desired 

to publish it as a counter-active of the ferocious Anglophobic accusations against the tariff-reform 

hero. But Mr. Cleveland, when his consent was sought, took a lofty and conscientious attitude, and 

refused to be a party to such electioneering claptrap, even if his success at the polls depended on it. 

The publication of the letter, with the connecting circumstances, would present one of the most 

characteristic chapters in Mr. Cleveland’s personal political history.” 

The document thus alluded to was a personal letter dated New-York, Sept. 18, 1888, from Señor 

Fr. Antonio Silva, In charge of the Venezuelan Legation at Washington, to Col. George W. 

Gibbons, who was at that time a diplomatic agent of the Venezuelan Republic and is now a legal 

practitioner, with an office in the Stewart Building. The following is a copy of it: 

Legation de Venezuela en Washington: 

NEW-YORK, Sept. 18, 1888. 

212


Col. George W. Gibbons [Diplomatic agent of the Republic of Venezuela] 

My Dear Sir: In reply to your inquiry of this date permit me to say that as the representative of the Government 

of Venezuela in the United States, I thank you for your manly and patriotic efforts in behalf of my country. To the 

President of the United States, Grover Cleveland, my country is largely indebted for his sympathy and the notion 

taken by him toward the Government of Great Britain, in showing that Government that the United States of 

America was not indifferent to the unwarranted acts of encroachment by Great Britain on the territory of the 

Republic of Venezuela. 

This timely interference on the part of President Cleveland has for the present stopped the English 

Government in her attempted acts of spoliation, encroachment, and appropriation to herself of very nearly onethird 

of our whole republic, and besides taking possession of the Orinoco River, which connects with the River 

Amazon and the Plate, the possession of which would have given to Great Britain the absolute control of the trade 

of the whole of South America. My Government and people feel that in President Cleveland they have a friend and 

protector, and that the power of Great Britain over this trade is at an end, and that closer commercial and friendly 

relations between the United States and my country are firmly established in the wishes of my countrymen and will 

be carried out by my Government. 

President Cleveland’s bold and manly course on the South American question will, no doubt, give your country 

the control of the trade of that portion of the continent, amounting to about $900,000,000 a year, a result which, I 

trust, will come to pass. It is my opinion that the safety of republican institutions in South America depends largely 

on the establishment of closer commercial relations, on a basis that will prove very advantageous to the United 

States, and of such a character that it will be impossible for Europe to compete or interfere. The natural position of 

both sections of this continent makes it imperative that such should be the case, and I am satisfied that such will be 

the result of the deliberations of the representatives of all the South American countries at the proposed conference 

to be held in Washington in January 1889, and which was approved by President Cleveland on the 24th day of May, 

1888. 

With the assurance of my high consideration, I remain, 

Yours truly, 

FR. ANTONIO SILVA 

For a suitable understanding of the Silva letter in its enthusiastic tribute to President Cleveland as 

Venezuela’s friend, a remembrance of certain historical facts is necessary. Previous to 1888 there 

really existed no Venezuela question of which our State Department could take serious cognizance 

on the grounds of the Monroe doctrine. Up to that time England and Venezuela had been uniformly 

passing a course of diplomatic negotiations with a view to compromise of some kind. That course 

showed astonishing irregularities and frequent changes of base; but on the whole, it was a course 

manifesting a decided willingness for concessions on both sides. 

Sir Robert Schomburgk, a British engineer in 1841 traced the arbitrary “Schomburgk line” 

beginning at the mouth of the Orinoco River, and intended to indicate the westward extent of 

British territorial claims. The Venezuelan Government made a vigorous protest, and accordingly 

Lord Aberdeen ordered the Schomburgk line obliterated and disavowed any design of peremptory 

conduct concerning the boundary question. In 1850 the British Government went even further, 

agreeing to a status quo whereby England pledged herself not to occupy or encroach upon any foot 

of the debated territory in consideration of a like pledge from Venezuela. In 1881 Señor Rojas, 

Venezuela’s diplomatic representative in London, endeavored to come to an understanding with 

Lord Granville, British Foreign Secretary, about the long-standing difficulty. Señor Rojas and Earl 

Granville each proposed a summary compromise line, and it is worthy of particular recollection that 

the line suggested by Granville placed the extreme limit of England’s claim very far to the east from 

the old repudiated Schomburgk line—leaving, in fact, the whole of the Orinoco mouth exclusively 

to Venezuela. Rojas and Granville could not agree, and matters dragged on for a while. Meantime 

213

21 – 23 December 1895 

President Guzman Blanco, as a means of bringing England to terms, persuaded the Venezuelan 

Congress to place a discriminating duty of 30 percent on all merchandise from the British 

colonies—which was a direct blow at British West Indian trade. In consequence of this the English 

Government invited Venezuela to appoint a diplomatic agent accredited with full powers to settle all 

pending issues. Guzman Blanco thereupon proceeded to London, and entered into negotiations 

with the Gladstone Cabinet—the upshot of which was that Lord Granville, on June 18, 1885, 

consented to a treaty whereby every matter of difference between the two countries which could not 

be adjusted in the ordinary diplomatic way should be submitted to the arbitration of a power or 

powers in amity with both nations. 

This arbitration treaty was promptly repudiated by Lord Salisbury when he came into power 

soon afterward. Then, and not until then, the English Government began to develop its programme 

of not only claiming, but seizing, fortifying, and holding Venezuelan territory in utter defiance of 

every suggestion of arbitration or compromise. 

The attention of the Cleveland Administration, early in January, 1888, was drawn by the 

Venezuelan Minister to extraordinary British aggressions. At that period diplomatic claims of a 

serious character were pending on the part of American citizens against the Venezuelan 

Government, and President Cleveland had taken occasion to use pretty strong language in urging 

their settlement. This should be remembered in forming a proper estimate of the significance of our 

Government’s response to the Venezuelan Minister’s appeal. That response was contained in a note 

communicated Feb. 17, 1888, by Secretary of State Bayard to Edward J. Phelps, United States 

Minister to England, in which he said: 

I transmit herewith translation of a note received by me on the 15th inst., wherein the Venezuelan Minister sets 

forth the information lately supplied to him to the effect that the Legislature of Demerara has recently asserted a 

claim of British jurisdiction over the gold- mining districts of Caratal, on the headwaters of the Yuruari River, and 

that, by a decree of the Government of British Guiana, dated Dec. 31, 1887, formal denial is made of the validity of 

a grant by the Venezuelan Government for the construction of a railway frown Ciudad Bolivar to Guacipati, a city 

in the Caratal district, on the ground that it passes in and over certain territories and lands within and forming part 

of the Colony of British Guiana. . . 

The Government of the United States has hitherto taken an earnest and friendly interest in the question of 

boundaries so long in dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela, and so far as its disinterested counsels were 

admissible, has advocated an amicable, final and honorable settlement of the dispute. We have followed this course 

on the assumption that the issue was one of historical fact, eminently adaptable for admitting arbitration and that 

the territorial claims of each party had a fixed limit, the right of which would without difficulty be determined 

according to the evidence. 

The claim now stated to have been put forth by the authority of British Guiana necessarily gives rise to grave 

disquietude, anti creates an apprehension that the territorial claim does not follow historical traditions or evidence, 

but is apparently indefinite. At no time hitherto does it appear that the district of which Guacipati is the centre has 

been claimed as British territory or that such jurisdiction has ever been asserted over its inhabitants, and if the 

reported decree of the Government of British Guiana be indeed genuine it is not apparent how any line of railway 

from Ciudad Bolivar to Guacipati could enter or traverse territory within the control of Great Britain. 

If, indeed, it should appear that there is no fixed limit to the British boundary claim, our good disposition to aid 

in a settlement might not only be defeated, but be obliged to give place to a feeling of grave concern. . . 

It was this firm action of Secretary Bayard’s, taken without hesitation immediately after the 

intervention of our Government was formally requested by Venezuela, and notwithstanding the 

diplomatic differences at that period existing between the United States and Venezuela which caused 

Señor Silva to write in such emphatic terms to Mr. Gibbons at a critical emergency of the campaign 

214


of 1888. Recalling the circumstance in an interview had with him by a reporter for The New-York 

Times, Mr. Gibbons said: 

“As a diplomatic agent of Venezuela I was much interested in everything affecting the trade and 

political relations of the United States with South American countries in general, and Venezuela in 

particular. I was a Democrat in American politics, and a great admirer of Grover Cleveland, as I still. 

I regard his tariff-reform and free-ships ideas as of vital importance to the development of our 

South American trade. It was estimated by The Dry Goods Chronicle that the foreign commerce of the 

South American republics amounted to $1,000,000,000 annually, of which the United States had 

only 14 percent. Laws providing for free trade on a comprehensive scale and lower rates of duty in 

general, and, at the same time, for American registry of foreign-built ships, would have been 

immediately followed by a practical mastery of South American trade. 

“Señor Silva perfectly well understood my views on these points, and, as a patriotic Venezuelan, 

he felt very grateful to Mr. Cleveland for the stand taken by the Administration early in 1888 against 

British territorial aggression. In the course of my correspondence with him during the Presidential 

campaign of 1888, I wrote to him respecting the general topic of the community of interests of the 

South American republics, and their common dependence upon the United States as their natural 

friend and protector. I wish you to understand that his reply, so highly complimenting Mr. 

Cleveland, was perfectly spontaneous—not at all the consequence of any prearranged understanding 

for campaign purposes. Señor Silva, who is now in Havana looking out for the interests of the estate 

of his son (who recent1y was the Venezuelan Consul General in that city, and was killed in the 

memorable explosion there about two years ago) is a very bright and high-minded man, and his 

letter to me was an entirely voluntary and disinterested tribute to President Cleveland. 

“Feeling very strongly about the unjust Republican accusations against Mr. Cleveland, based on 

the Sackville matter, I took Señor Silva’s letter to C. S. Brice, Chairman of the Democratic National 

Committee. This was with Señor Silva’s full consent. Mr. Brice recognized its importance, and felt 

that its publication would not only put an end to the Sackvllle business, but throw new light upon 

the merits of the President’s tariff-reform programme. But he told me that, as it was a confidential 

communication from a diplomatic representative of a foreign Government, he was unwilling to take 

the responsibility for making it public without the President’s consent. 

“Thereupon, at Mr. Brice’s suggestion, I went to Washington to have an interview with the 

President, and, if possible, persuade him to agree to the publication of the letter. A telegram, 

announcing my corning, was sent from the National Democratic headquarters to the White House. I 

found Private Secretary Lamont waiting for me at the foot of the White House stairs, and I was 

ushered immediately into Mr. Cleveland’s presence. He read the document over attentively, reflected 

just a moment, and said: 

“‘Mr. Gibbons, I agree with you that it would have a good political effect to print this at the 

present time. I know full well that my re-election is involved in much doubt, and that if the public 

could read the letter I hold in my hand our party would be helped materially. But since I am 

consulted, I tell you frankly that I cannot be a party to the matter; and, more than that, I forbid any 

use of the document, which I think I have a perfect right to do, as President. It is a letter from a 

member of the Diplomatic Corps, who is required by all considerations to have nothing to do in the 

home political concerns of this country; and while Señor Silva carefully avoids allusions to our party 

politics, the proposed publication for campaign ends would be tantamount to a breach of proprieties 

and I would have to take cognizance of it officially as such. In that event I should be obliged to 

immediately give Mr. Silva notice to go home’. 

215

21 – 23 December 1895 

“In consequence of President Cleveland’s conscientious and dignified attitude,” said Mr. 

Gibbons,” the Silva letter could not be used for the campaign of 1888. Its appearance in The New- 

York Times now, in view of the recent developments of the Venezuelan question, is very opportune, 

and will help to show the people that the momentous issue which their noble President now makes 

with England is no new one suddenly brought forward by him for effect or from any motives which 

small politicians and critics insultingly ascribe to him. On the contrary, the vigorous utterances in the 

Olney letter, and again in the President’s annual message, and finally in the special message of last 

Tuesday, are but the logical sequences, coming in the fullness of time, of the courageous and 

unqualified Venezuelan policy that was inaugurated nearly eight years ago—inaugurated deliberately, 

but without any blast of trumpets. 

“The public will give President Cleveland all the more credit, both as a man and as the dignified 

head of the Nation, because he refused to consent to the publication of the Silva letter in the 1888 

campaign. That refusal was no slight illustration of one of the most admirable characteristics of the 

man and the President as he is known to those who know him best and honor him most. A bitter 

clamor had been raised against him by his enemies upon the representation that England desired his 

re-election. That was done to prejudice Irish voters and also to distract attention from the results of 

the tariff-reform discussion. He had it in his power to thoroughly discomfit his accusers, and, 

besides, to introduce a new issue into the campaign—the issue of trade expansion with South 

American countries, whose commerce aggregated fully $800,000,000; to say nothing of the issue of 

the Monroe doctrine. But in his mind, to take advantage or that opportunity would have involved a 

compromise of dignity of the Presidential office. He recognized no other consideration, and he 

preferred to sacrifice the temporary advantage.” 


- 137 - 

UPHELD BY THE CONGRESS 

The President Given Full Power in the Venezuelan Matter 

NO DESIRE FOR PARTISAN ADVANTAGE 

Amendments to the Hitt Bill Withheld for Patriotic Reasons 

—The Appropriation Unanimously Voted 

AMERICA’S POSITION WELL FORTIFIED 

Mr. Cleveland’s Attitude Heartily Approved in Every Quarter 

—The Country United in Its Sentiment 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20.—The Senate acted patriotically and wisely to-day. With absolute 

unanimity, when it came to a vote, The Hitt bill providing for the appointment of a Venezuelan 

Boundary Commission was passed just as it came from the House. 

The purpose in so passing the bill was precisely the one indicated in these dispatches last night as 

the one that should control, that any amendment which might be construed into an expression of 

doubt about the wisdom or the patriotism of the President, or as indicating a division of sentiment 

in the Congress or the country about the justice and soundness of the position he had taken in his 

216


message, would weaken the impression which it was important to convey of National agreement 

with the President. 

If the question had been one in which our relations with another country were not involved this 

would not have happened. That there was some question about the wisdom of leaving the whole 

matter in the President’s discretion was apparent in the decision of the Foreign Relations Committee 

to amend the bill so as to provide that the three Commissioners to be named should be confirmed 

by the Senate. If the Senate had insisted upon that, its object would have been to assure our own 

people that the Senate agreed with the President and wished to sustain him by approving of the men 

he might select to report on the boundary question. 

But, lest this limitation of the powers of the President should be misunderstood and unfavorably 

commented upon in England, as showing that the President and the Senate were pulling apart on 

the assertion of the Monroe doctrine, the bill was allowed to go through just as it was introduced 

and passed by the House. 

Some House Members Disappointed 

This prompt disposition of the bill will cause deep disappointment among a very few members 

of the House. From New England have come protests against the sudden action of the House in 

passing the bill upon its introduction, and Capt. Boutelle, in a little way, has been justified for his 

inclination to stop the bill without objecting to it. 

There was an opinion in the House, amounting almost to a conviction, that the Senate would 

not take the bill just as it received it, but that it would amend it in several particulars, naming the 

limit of time in which the commission must report, giving two or three members of the commission 

to the Senate and to the House and an equal number to the President, and thus constituting the 

commission with a majority of Republican members, who would see that no party advantage should 

be obtained for the Democrats. 

All the waiting partisans who contemplated a deliberative session over the amended bill have 

missed their opportunity. The bill now only needs to be printed, as approved by the by the Speaker 

and the Vice President, and sent to the President for his approval. 

A Strong Position 

As the study of the Venezuelan question is pursued here the strength of the position of the 

President and Secretary Olney is found to be greater than was supposed by those who have had only 

imperfect information about our acquaintance, officially, with the subject. 

The United States is simply adhering to a continuous policy in resisting British aggression in 

Venezuela. The subject was brought to the attention of the Government in 1886 by Señor Colcano, 

then Venezuelan Minister of Foreign Affairs, and was fully discussed by Secretary Bayard in 

communications to Minister Phelps. Mr. Bayard, in spite of the dislike felt for him by the extreme 

jingo element, was only a shade less emphatic in his expressions of 1887 and 1888 than Mr. Olney 

has been this year. 

Mr. Bayard declared in a letter to Mr. Phelps dated Feb. 17, 1888, after reviewing the situation, 

that “if, indeed, it should appear that there is no fixed limit to the British boundary claim, our good 

disposition to aid in a settlement might not only be defeated, but be obliged to give place to a feeling 

of great concern.” 

217

21 – 23 December 1895 

English Claims Refuted 

The claim now put forward by hasty English magazine writers that Great Britain has never 

admitted that se was making encroachments or that her claims were not well founded receives a 

curious commentary from the undisputed statement of facts submitted by Minister Colcano in 1886. 

He then said: 

As early as 1841, the nation was alarmed by the arrival of an English Commissioner, who advanced as far as the 

mouths of the Orinoco, invading localities, setting outposts, and raising crowns and flats at Barima. It is but fair to 

admit that, in consequence of the complaints then made, Her Britannic Majesty ordered the removal of these marks. 

She also entered into negotiations at the instance of our representative for the conclusion of a treaty for the 

settlement of the boundary question. The discussion was commenced and proposals were made, but matters did not 

advance in consequence of certain unacceptable conditions which were added, and subsequently, in consequence of 

the death of our plenipotentiary. 

The maps submitted at this time and subsequently, show the wide variance between the territory 

originally claimed by Venezuela, and the line now admitted to limit her possessions by Great Britain. 

The original contention, according to the Venezuelan claims, was over a mass of territory around the 

upper courses of the Esequibo. 

Then appeared in 1841 the British Commissioner who drew the Schomburgk line—a line drawn 

without the consent of Venezuela, and including the territory around the upper courses of the 

Esequibo within its British possessions. 

Gold Territory Involved 

The line was also so drawn as to take in an important piece of territory west of the Esequibo, 

which includes important gold mines. This line includes within British Guiana the territory which 

the British Government now refuses to submit to arbitration. It includes great stretches of territory, 

extending over from one to two degrees of west longitude and many degrees of latitude which 

previously prepared official British papers had never claimed to be within the British possessions. 

The Governor of Demerara, in a dispatch on Sept. 1, 1836, said that the River Pomaron, just 

west of the mouths of the Esequibo, and an entire degree of longitude east of the Schomburgk line, 

might be taken as the limit of the English colony. An Englishman who had killed an Indian was 

arraigned in Demerara in September, 1840, and, the defendant having proved that the act was 

committed on the River Moroco, the tribunal of the colony declared itself without jurisdiction, 

because the crime was consummated in foreign territory. This river was away without the 

Schgmburgk line. 

Lord Aberdeen offered a boundary beginning at this River Moroco and leaving within the limits 

of Venezuela, much of the territory which Sir Robert Schomburgk had coolly endeavored to bring 

within British jurisdiction by drawing arbitrary lines on a map. The offer was rejected, because it was 

put in the terms of a cession by Great Britain, did not include the territory claimed by Venezuela, 

and was coupled with the conditions that the Government of Venezuela should not alienate any part 

of the territory to a foreign power. 

Thus matters lay, with only brief discussion in 1876 and 1877, until 1881, when Señor Rojas, 

Venezuelan Minister at London, offered to make a settlement upon the basis of the Moroco. He was 

answered, after a long delay, that the British Government could not accept the mouth of the 

218


Moroco as the limit on the coast. The British Government now talked of the mouths of the 

Orinoco, several hundred miles west of the Moroco, as the line up to which they had a right to make 

claims, apparently basing these claims upon the fact that British subjects had settled within the 

territory. During all these years, while a settlement was delayed, British subjects and British missions 

were making their way further an further to the west, establishing every year a stronger British claim, 

if such a claim can be based upon the occupation of foreign territory by British subjects. The 

Venezuelan Government has repeatedly challenged Great Britain to a comparison of evidence as to 

the historic rights to the territory in dispute, but has been answered by a constant advance of the 

British claims, and without that specific evidence which the Venezuelans have expressed themselves 

ready, on their side, to submit. 

The mouths of the Barima, voluntarily relinquished in 1841, now constitute a part of the 

territory claimed by Great Britain and invaded by persons claiming allegiance to her and disputing 

the sovereignty of Venezuela. 

No Sudden Inspiration 

The position taken by Secretary Olney is no sudden inspiration of jingoism, but has become a 

part of the settled foreign of the United States under successive Administrations. If the two 

Administrations of President Cleveland made the matter more prominent than did those of Mr. 

Arthur and Mr. Harrison, it is because other subjects of discussion with Great Britain, especially the 

Bering Sea matter, under President Harrison, have absorbed their time. But there was no disavowal 

under the Republican Administration of the position which Secretary Bayard assumed as the 

successor of Secretary Fish and Secretary Frelinghuysen. Secretary Olney has felt from the beginning 

that it was a matter demanding the most serious consideration of the United States, and that it could 

no longer play into the hands of Great Britain by permitting the gradual occupation of the territory 

of Venezuela as the basis of new British claims. 

The Schomburgk Line 

The Schomburgk line, when it was adopted, according to the Venezuelan view, was an assertion 

of the extreme limit of British claims at that time. It was then assumed as a starting point for fresh 

aggressions, which have again been made the basis of new claims. 

Those who attribute to President Cleveland a different policy from that which he pursued in the 

Corinto affair and a sudden disposition to court cheap applause by catering to the jingo element do 

not do justice, his friends declare, to the sober spirit in which he views the boundary controversy. 

He has said to those who have called upon him that he did not wish to court the applause of the 

noisy element which is eager for foreign war, and that he had been reluctant to take a position which 

seemed to invite an armed conflict. 

He feels, however, that the United States cannot look with indifference upon the gradual 

destruction of Venezuela by the eating away of her territorial limits and their transfer to a foreign 

power. He believes he is right in this position, both as the Chief Executive of the United States, 

bound by its historic policy to arrest the extension of European power on this continent, and as an 

American, interested in preventing injustice to a comparatively weak American power. He is little 

likely to be swerved from his position, or to accept European interpretations of the Monroe 

doctrine, and its application to American affairs. 

219

21 – 23 December 1895 


- 138 - 

THE SENATE DOES ITS DUTY 

Passes the Venezuela Commission Bill by Unanimous Vote 

TRUSTS ALL TO THE PRESIDENT 

A Debate That Was Marked by Great Patriotism—An Earnest and Deliberate Discussion 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20.—The spirit of patriotism was too deep in the Senate to-day to admit 

of quick action on the Venezuelan Commission bill. It seethed and bubbled, and fairly ran aver at 

times. Three hours were consumed in the consideration of the measure. The time was well spent. 

It has been the assertion by the British press since the President’s message was sent to Congress 

that Mr. Cleveland was actuated by political motives only, and that the American public would not 

sustain him in his course toward Great Britain. By this time it is known in England that the 

Congress, which speaks for the American people, has given the President the assurance of its hearty 

support. It ought to be doubly significant to the British Government that the Senate, which prides 

itself on its decorum and deliberate methods, has displayed infinitely more earnestness and 

enthusiasm in its consideration of the House measure than did the House itself. 

All the authority he asked for has been given to the President. The bill when it left the Senate 

late this afternoon was exactly in the form in which it passed the House two days ago. 

Scenes That Will Not Be Forgotten 

The scenes in the Senate Chamber to-day will not soon be forgotten. If war with Great Britain 

already had been declared the speakers could not have been more determined in their declarations 

that the Monroe doctrine should be upheld at all hazards. 

In anticipation of an exciting time hundreds of persons occupied the galleries before 12 o’clock. 

By the time the bill was reported every seat was taken, and the corridors outside contained an 

anxious throng waiting for an opportunity to witness the proceedings. There were not more than a 

dozen vacant seats on the floor of the Senate when the excitement began, and these were occupied 

speedily by members of the House who were interested in the fate of the Commission bill. Less 

fortunate Representatives had to stand. At one time in the course of the debate the space behind the 

rear row of seats was crowded with members and others having the privileges of the floor. 

Great Interest Manifested 

The report was circulated some time before the session opened that the Senate would not 

modify the House bill. It had become known that Mr. Lodge, who yesterday offered an amendment 

limiting the time in which the committee might report to April 1, had decided to withdraw it. Mr. 

Lodge said in explanation of his action that he had become convinced over-night that the position 

of this Government would be strengthened if the Senate should indorse the House bill in its 

entirety. 

220


The news of his change of base intensified interest in the prospective report of the Committee 

on Foreign Relations. That committee, true to the promise made yesterday by Mr. Morgan, its 

Chairman, met early this morning and agreed upon a substitute bill, the principal change being that 

the commission should be limited to three members, to be appointed “by and with the advice and 

consent of the Senate.” That these proposed amendments would not be permitted to stand in the 

way of the sentiment of a majority of the Senate was made known by Mr. Morgan when the 

Commission bill came up for consideration. He acknowledged there was a difference of opinion in 

the committee regarding the propriety of amending the House bill in any way. Personally, he would 

prefer to see the bill passed in its original form. 

All this was exceedingly gratifying to the advocates of prompt and decisive action in support of 

the President’s position. 

A Wave of Discontent 

A wave of discontent rolled over the Chamber when Mr. Allen, the Nebraska Populist, tried to 

divert the Senate from the main issue by entering upon a rambling discourse, in which the present 

condition of the Treasury was declared to be so perilous that nothing short of the free and unlimited 

coinage of silver would avert disaster. He took up in succession the bills recently introduced 

providing for increasing the naval and military arms of the public service, and asserted that nothing 

could be done unless the populistic theory of supplying the Treasury with funds should be adopted. 

His effort to be funny was painful and shallow, and everybody was glad when he took his seat. 

The flow of oratory which followed was interesting, because, as it proceeded, the conviction 

became stronger that the Senate was disposed to take affirmative action before adjournment. 

A Few Discordant Notes 

There were a few discordant notes. John Sherman was conservative. He counseled further delay. 

The Senate would not accept his advice to “hang up” the bill until after the holidays. 

Mr. Platt struck the keynote of the matter when he declared that further delay or any 

amendments made by the Senate would be regarded in England as hesitancy on the part of the body 

to sustain the President. Mr. Platt recognized the necessity of disabusing the mind of Great Britain 

of the idea that the President’s message to Congress was written purely for political effect. 

In succession Mr. Lodge, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Chandler, and Mr. Teller declared in favor of prompt 

action and no amendments. Mr. Chandler’s speech was the brightest of the day. There was keen 

appreciation of his statement that the threat of British financiers to unload their American securities 

was a gigantic “bluff.” 

The Amendment Tabled 

Mr. Chandler’s motion that the committee amendment be laid upon the table was indorsed by 

Mr. Morgan as a reflection of his own views, and the Senate subscribed to the proposition with 

alacrity. On the final vote the bill went through without a dissenting voice. 

Interest was added to the debate by the speech of Mr. Mills, who assumed that the country was 

on the verge of war and declared that the Constitutional mandate against taxation of real estate 

should be done away with in order that the Treasury might immediately be filled. Not the least 

221

21 – 23 December 1895 

interesting feature of the debate was the appearance of the white-haired Mr. Stewart making a 

speech in which “the crime of 1873” was not once referred to. 


- 139 - 

THE THING THAT MAKES FOR PEACE 

It would be very foolish to draw conclusions as the outcome of the Venezuelan dispute from the 

events of the few days following the message of the President in the excitement of the moment 

things are said on both sides that will conveniently be forgotten. The men who frankly confess or 

loudly profess that they are spoiling for a fight, and that a lively war with Great Britain would delight 

the American people, who are at heart lovers of justice and of peace, and, who, though they will 

accept without flinching the duty that is presented to, will do so soberly and with a profound 

conception of the horrors of war. On the other hand, the men who are representing Mr. Cleveland 

as a jingo and his policy as a party “coup,” who are railing at the Secretary of State, and exhausting 

the vocabulary of abuse to discredit the honesty and fidelity of the responsible officers of the 

Government, are in their turn wholly unrepresentative of the American people. We are often 

inclined, in purely domestic matters, to think poorly enough of our rulers. It is a habit bred of our 

bitter partisan contests, but as a people we do not respect those who follow that habit when the eyes 

of the world are on our rulers. 

But while the manifestations of the moment are some of them misleading and confusing, the 

essential features of the situation are, we think, clear and will be recognized. The most important of 

these is not the fact—though it clearly is the fact—that the great body of the American people back 

their Government, right or wrong, but that in this case the position of the Government is one that 

the world must ultimately acknowledge is unselfish and just. Mr. Cleveland seeks for his country not 

the slightest advantage at the expense of any other. He is not trying to extend our territorial limits. 

He does not claim to encroach upon the rights of any other nation. He does not pretend to decide 

what are the rights of either Great Britain or Venezuela. He simply asserts the duty of the United 

States to see that no essential wrong is done to any independent nation on this continent and invites 

Great Britain to consent to the only possible adequate method of determining what the rights of the 

two parties to the controversy are. And the American people, the longer they study his attitude, the 

more completely they understand it, are bound to be more and more firm in their support of their 

Government. 

That, we believe, is the surest augury of peace. It is the best and only way to impress upon the 

Government and upon the people of Great Britain the real nature of the issue between the two 

Governments. Even so strong-willed and so self-confident a statesman as Lord Salisbury cannot 

face that issue with a light heart The British people, with all their absorption in trade and their 

stubborn energy in pursuit of their interests, have a substratum of love of equity. When they are 

convinced that the choice is between submitting their claim to South American territory to 

arbitration, or else arriving at a peaceful settlement with Venezuela on the one hand, or, on the 

other, an aggressive war on Venezuela supported by the United States, we have no doubt what 

222


choice they will insist upon. In the strictest and simplest sense, the way to secure peace is to make 

ready for war, and the chief element of readiness is the strong, calm, unflagging support of the 

sentiment of the people. 


- 140 - 

SOUTH AMERICA WILL APPROVE 

Charles R. Flint Is Absolutely Certain of This Fact 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20.—Charles R. Flint of New-York, who is in this city, expresses great 

confidence in the unanimous approval by the South American republics of the President’s message 

on Venezuela. “The reassertion, in so explicit and vigorous a manner, of the Monroe doctrine, 

cannot fail,” he says, “to increase with these countries respect for the United States, and deeper 

sympathy with our institutions and interests.” 

Mr. Flint’s business acquaintance with the South American republics, which is also a very large 

personal acquaintance, justifies him in making the prediction, with the greatest confidence, that 

when the South American republics speak, they will have but one opinion, and that will be favorable 

to the utterances of the President. 

When they have had opportunity to speak officially, he has not the slightest doubt that they will 

approve our position, first, because we have asserted it, and next, for the reason that the assurance it 

gives to Venezuela of fraternal interest will appeal to all republics that might be subjected to 

aggressions like that suffered by Venezuela. 


- 141 - 

“WE SHALL NOT YIELD AN INCH” 

Mr. Vanderbilt Says the President Was Ready to Face Any Situation 

BRUSSELS, Dec. 20.—The Soir publishes an interview with Mr. Vanderbilt*, who, according to 

that paper, said: 

“We shall not yield an inch. We shall begin by closing our ports against England. I have private 

telegrams announcing the convocation of a congress of delegates from all the American republics. 

This congress will effect the late Mr. Blaine’s project for a customs union.” 

Referring to England’s navy, Mr. Vanderbilt exposed the palm of his hand and said: 

“In a month from the declaration of war the entire ocean will be as clean as this of British 

ships.” 

President Cleveland, he added, would never have thrown the gauntlet down unless he had been 

prepared for every eventuality. 

223

21 – 23 December 1895 

“Hands off” he concluded “is America’s cry to Great Britain.” 


*The American multi-millionaire, Cornelius Vanderbilt 

- 142 - 

HAS NO FAITH IN UNITED STATES 

The Venezuelans Will Never Rely on the Americans 

TORONTO, Ontario. Dec. 21.—Mr. B. Lawrence, the only accredited representative of 

Venezuela in Canada, is a resident of this city. In an interview with The United Press respecting the 

boundary difficulty, Mr. Lawrence said: 

“There is only one way in which the real frontier can possibly be found, and that is by searching 

the archives of Madrid and The Hague. There is nothing in Venezuela that will throw any light upon 

the subject. They have nothing down there but a few antiquated maps, which may be interesting 

enough as relics, but which, as helps in ascertaining boundary lines, would be almost valueless. If 

President Cleveland really wants to get the facts of the case, a friendly request to the Government at 

Madrid for permission to search the archives would do more toward getting at the information 

required than anything else he can possibly do.” 

“What do you think will be the outcome of the present entanglement?” 

“One thing is very certain—the interference of the United States Government will not result in 

any good to Venezuela. The Venezuelans will never rely on the Americans. They look upon them us 

a people who would maintain the bluff until they (the Venezuelans) got into the lurch, and would 

then desert them and leave them more defenseless than ever. The people themselves have no quarrel 

with England. They like the English people, and the word of an Englishman is the most solemn 

asseveration you will hear even among the natives. They have no very exalted idea of the hospitality 

of the people of the United States, and have not much confidence in their promises.” 

Mr. Lawrence says Venezuelan soldiers are brave and wiry, and will fight like wildcats. Their 

whole boundary line is defenseless. The disputed territory covers 25,000 square miles, and is rich in 

gold and mines. 


- 143 - 

GERMANY AGAINST THE PRESIDENT 

His Message Denounced by an Organ of the Government 

BERLIN, Dec. 21.—When President Cleveland’s Venezuelan message to the United States 

Congress burst upon Europe, the semi-official press of Berlin and the other German centres 

224


generally touched upon the subject with extreme caution. The Cologne Gazette certainly did bristle up 

a little against Mr. Cleveland, but the Berlin newspapers, which were awaiting instructions from the 

Ministers as to their treatment of the document, refrained from committing themselves to an 

expression of opinion absolutely adverse to the United States Government. 

The Ministerial inspiration seems to have been finally given, and in pursuance of instructions the 

North German Gazette makes a vicious attack upon the message. The article which the Gazette 

devotes to the message declares that Mr. Cleveland has arrogated for the United States the supreme 

judgeship of all questions affecting the other States in the western hemisphere. “No European 

Government,” the article says, “disputes the high position or the form of Government of the United 

States, but this new phase of spread-eagleism requires the attention of the European nations. The 

new and strained interpretation of international law necessary to support the so-called Monroe 

doctrine demands the serious consideration of other Governments besides England.” 

Since this article appeared, the report has been circulated in the Ministerial circle that the Kaiser 

had told Prince Hohenlohe that he was determined to throw the influence of Germany upon the 

side of England. No authentic information in regard to the Emperor’s opinion can be obtained, of 

course, but the tone of the North German Gazette’s article, combined with the official resentment of 

the threatened commercial retaliations, clearly indicates the probable attitude of the German 

Government. 

The American colony here receive the adverse German opinion with equanimity, and are 

confident that it will not in any way affect the issues between England and the United States, as 

Germany cannot risk any form of active intervention, not do the utterances of the semi-official press 

represent the unanimous German sentiment. 

The Freisinnige newspapers take an impartial line, regretting chiefly the possibility of a conflict 

between sister peoples having free institutions and standing in the forefront of the civilized world. 

Some of the Bismarckian organs, notably the Hamburger Nachrichten, while condemning the message 

or Mr. Cleveland as an arbitrary assertion of supremacy on the part of the United States, express 

satisfaction at seeing a strong power administer a severe check to the world-wide arrogance of 

England. 

The Lokal Anzeiger publishes a report of an interview with Sir Frank Lascelles, British 

Ambassador to Germany, in which that diplomat says that he does not expect any grave 

complications as a sequel to the message in regard to Venezuela sent to the American Congress by 

President Cleveland. 

Lord Salisbury, he said, had the confidence of the British Parliament and the friendly powers, 

and a speedy return of good relations between Great Britain and the United States ought to be 

looked forward to. 

Mr. Hahn Echenagucia, the Venezuelan Consul here, said to a United Press reporter to-day that 

Venezuela would offer resistance to England to the bitter end. A pacific settlement of the dispute 

between Venezuela and Great Britain, he said, was out of the question, and the appointment of an 

American Boundary Commission would increase the breach. 


225

21 – 23 December 1895 

- 144 - 

ITALY OFFERS HER SERVICES 

Willing to Act as Arbitrator Between This Country and Great Britain 

PARIS, Dec. 21.—The Temps publishes a dispatch from Rome saying that Italy has offered to act 

as arbitrator of the difficulty between Great Britain and the United States. Great Britain, the dispatch 

adds, has not replied to the offer. 


LONDON, Dec. 21.—The Globe says: 

- 145 - 

“FINANCIAL KINGS” DON’T WANT WAR 

“The financial kings of the Old World are firmly resolved that such a horror as war between England and the 

United States shall not occur, and they will not hesitate to employ any means to prevent it. Our great banks are 

insisting upon the immediate repayment of advances made to American houses, at the same time intimating that 

they will suspend financial accommodation so long as the menace of an American commission to locate the 

boundary of British Guiana hangs in the air.” 


- 146 - 

ENGLAND IS NOT EXCITED 

Venezuelan Affairs Receive But Little Public Attention 

NO CABINET MEETING TILL JANUARY 

The Queen Much Interested in the Subject—President Cleveland’s Second 

Message Favorably Received 

LONDON, Dec. 21.—No one in the thick of events here and in a position to judge of public 

feeling can honestly affirm that the country is in the state of excitement over the difficulties which 

have arisen in connection with the Anglo-Venezuelan dispute that some of the newspapers 

represent. Official and diplomatic circles have never shared in the extreme alarmist views that have 

found expression in the press. 

It is expected that no Cabinet meeting will be held until the views of the American Government, 

embodied in a dispatch that Mr. Olney, the American Secretary of State, is understood to be about 

to send in reply to Lord Salisbury’s note, have reached the Foreign Office. Upon making inquiries as 

to when this reply was likely to be received, the representative of The United Press learned that it was 

226


expected to reach here early in January. It depends upon the nature and tone of Mr. Olney’s 

communication whether the situation will become really critical. 

The ignorance of the English masses in regard to the real issue between the Governments must 

ere long operate to restrain Lord Salisbury from following an active policy of sheer defiance of 

America. The Monroe doctrine breaks upon the bulk of the populace like the enigma of the Sphinx. 

The locality of the dispute is to them a geographical mystery. Even The Westminster Gazette, which is 

an organ of the educated classes, thinks it necessary to inform its readers that neither British Guiana 

nor Demerara is an island, as is generally supposed in England. Before the Government dares to 

commit the country, the people will want to know what the trouble is about. 

The Queen is showing the keenest anxiety in the matter. Lord Salisbury was closeted yesterday at 

the Foreign Office, not seeing even the diplomats. In the evening he sent a long dispatch to her 

Majesty at Osborne House, on the Isle of Wight, where she is at present sojourning. The Queen’s 

remembrance of the fact that the last official act of the Prince Consort was the preparing of a 

memorandum counseling a peaceful settlement of the Trent affair will incline her to interfere to 

prevent a rupture between the two countries. 

The Westminster Gazette says that President Cleveland’s second special message to the Congress of 

the United States greatly improves the situation. “The President’s enemies,” The Gazette says, 

“though stalwart for the application of the Monroe doctrine, will not scruple to attack his currency 

policy. We hope that our Government will seize this occasion to make it clear that we do not intend 

to challenge the Monroe doctrine or to raise that issue.” 

The Pall Mall Gazette says: “Even if Venezuela were ten thousand times right it would be 

impossible for Great Britain to recognize her rights or even make the slightest concessions to her 

until President Cleveland withdraws from his menacing attitude. The sole service which his message 

has done to the Monroe doctrine is to call forth a chorus of disavowal and ridicule from the whole 

of Europe.” 


- 147 - 

THE AMERICAN PLAN CONDEMNED 

A Paris Journal’s Opinion of the President’s Message 

PARIS, Dec. 21.—The Journal des Débats, discussing the British-American situation, says: 

Perhaps Great Britain might have accepted the proposal to submit the Venezuelan question to arbitration, but 

what it most significant is the fact that in the face of the refusal of Great Britain to entertain the suggestion of 

arbitration, the United States declared themselves arbitrators and decided to send a commission of inquiry in regard 

to the disputed boundary line, whose conclusion should be binding upon all concerned. 

The Débats describes Secretary Olney’s dispatch to Lord Salisbury as a mixture of practical spirit 

and prejudice which must produce the very worst effect in London. The paper commends the reply 

of Lord Salisbury to Secretary Olney’s note, which, it says, does not contest the principle of the 

Monroe doctrine, but declares that that idea does not apply to the Venezuelan matter. 

227

21 – 23 December 1895 


- 148 - 

SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT 

The Venezuela Commission Bill Has Become a Law 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 21.—The President this afternoon approved the bill authorizing the 

appointment of the Venezuelan Commission and appropriating $100,000 for the expenses of the 

commission while it shall be engaged in inquiring into the Venezuelan boundary matter. 

The Executive approval was given to the measure as soon as the official copy reached the 

President. 


- 149 - 

PROF. McVANE ON THE MESSAGE 

He Says that This Government Is Doing a Very Rash Thing 

BOSTON, Dec. 21—Prof. McVane of the government and law department of Harvard 

University gave out his opinions on the Venezuelan trouble this morning in his course, government 

and law. He said: 

“The Government of the United States is doing a very rash thing in taking its present action. The people of 

British Guiana are as much entitled to the United States’ consideration as are the people of Venezuela. The 

inhabitants of Guiana are at all American born, which is not at all true of the people of Venezuela. As to the 

settlement of the question of boundary in 1791, there was none. All that Great Britain claimed was that all the 

unsettled territory the ownership of which was undecided should belong to her is it was settled by her people. The 

question is not a fit one for arbitration. England’s position is a tenable one. She has adopted the policy which the 

United States adopted during the first part of its life, and her policy is exactly that which the United Stares would 

have adopted if she had been in Great Britain’s place under like circumstances. 

“The United States had better consider what she is doing. In case of war, the conflict would be a hospital one. 

The climate or British Guiana is such that the hospital service would become the most important part of the army. 

As to the threats to shoot at the Canadians on account of trouble between England and Venezuela, that would be 

infamous.” 

An article in The Harvard Crimson this morning, signed by Profs. A. B. Hart, J. B. Ames, W. E. 

Hutton, Fletcher Dobbins, and others, says that war between England and the United States would 

be a calamity especially felt at the university, and urges the student to write to the Senators of their 

respective States urging them to use every Influence in their power to prevent a declaration of 

hostilities. 


228


- 150 - 

THE TALK ABOUT WAR 

Editorial - The New-York Times 

Those who are making haste to sell American stocks and bonds from fear that there will be a 

war between the United States and Great Britain would do well to examine carefully the grounds of 

that fear. As we have sustained the Government of the United States in the action it has taken, and 

as the great body of the people have done the same, we are, perhaps, in a better situation to aid in 

such an examination than are the few who have declared that the course of the Government has 

made war inevitable, and have denounced it accordingly. 

What, then, are the conditions which must necessarily precede any hostilities? In the first place, 

there must fail to be “any adjustment of the boundary which Venezuela may deem for her 

advantage, and may enter into of her own free will.” This, our Government has expressly declared, 

“cannot, of course, be objected to by the United States.” 

On this point Lord Salisbury declares that “Her Majesty’s Government are sincerely desirous of 

being on friendly relations width Venezuela” and “have not abandoned the hope that an 

understanding may be reached. This declaration is made in the conclusion of Lord Salisbury’s reply 

to Mr. Olney, and is accompanied by the assurance that “Her Majesty’s Government have no design 

to seize territory that properly belongs to Venezuela, or forcibly to extend sovereignty over any 

portion of her population.” 

It is not at all impossible, or even improbable, that Venezuela and Great Britain may reach a 

settlement that will relieve the United States of all responsibility and deprive it of any interest in the 

controversy. 

In the second place, the commission to be appointed by the President may find that the 

respective rights of Great Britain and Venezuela are such as do not call for the intervention of the 

United States. Our Government has not been, and is not now, definitely informed on that point. 

The commission is to be created to secure that information. Judgment on the merits of the case is 

frankly and candidly suspended until such information is obtained. When it shall have been 

obtained, but not before, a decision will be made. Our Government has been scrupulously careful to 

avoid any prejudgment. Its desire was not to be forced to any judgment whatever, but to leave the 

matter wholly to impartial arbitrators. It remains, and must remain, anxious that any judgment it 

shall reach, with the confessedly imperfect means now open to it, shall be as impartial as it can 

possibly be made. It is entirely premature to infer that the decision will be unfavorable to the claims 

of Great Britain. 

In the third place, if we assume that Venezuela and Great Britain shall not agree, and that the 

commission shall find that Great Britain is in the wrong, it does not follow that war must ensue. We 

shall then have, in the language of the President, a case “of willful aggression,” which it will “be the 

duty of the United States to resist, by every means in its power.” But even this does not necessarily 

involve war. It presents to the Governments of Great Britain and the United States a difference, 

which, if not adjusted, must lead to war, but the very certainty of that possible termination makes 

adjustment the more desirable and imperative, and the calm opinion of both peoples will be directed 

to securing it. 

229

21 – 23 December 1895 

We have defined the conditions that must precede war. It is possible that they may all be 

fulfilled. It is extremely improbable. And before they can be determined a long time will elapse, 

which can more profitably be employed than in panicky discussions. 


- 151 - 

LONDON AND VENEZUELA 

Downing Street, Britons Think, Needed Cleveland’s Rousing Protest 

By Commercial Cable from Our Own Correspondent 

LONDON, Dec. 21.—It would need a big took adequately to depict the state of mind of 

London and of England at large since Wednesday morning. It would begin by the description of a 

moral earthquake, followed immediately by the blackest and densest sort of mental fog. The shock 

of the former is still rocking these islands, but the latter, by slow degrees, is clearing off. Englishmen 

still find their perturbed nerves quivering automatically, but their minds are coming under better 

control and they are already revising or trying to forget some of the hasty things which they said in 

the first stages of their confusion. To give merely one illustration, I hear men who Thursday were all 

for shelling New-York within a fortnight saying to-night that, after all, England has undeniably got 

into bad habits in dealing with smaller peoples, and perhaps some such vigorous rousing protest as 

President Cleveland’s was needed to waken Downing Street to the consciousness of the fact. From 

this attitude it will be a short step to a general popular request for a statement of how England, 

without undue loss of dignity, can meet America’s wishes on this Venezuelan matter, which nobody 

here cares a button about. This, I believe unreservedly, will be Englishmen’s real feeling a week 

hence, although hot words on both sides may obscure its expression or even silence it altogether. 

Unfortunately, all England started Wednesday morning with a profound misapprehension of 

what was really involved, and, for once, special correspondents in New-York helped to strengthen 

this delusion. Englishmen have formed the rather contemptuous habit of supposing that everything 

in America displeasing to them originates in the desire of our politicians to pander to the Irish vote, 

and they would have naturally jumped to this explanation of the President’s message had the 

President been anybody but Cleveland. In the present case their respect for his character would have 

made them hesitate; but, unhappily, they were told from all sides in New-York that this must not be 

taken into account and that the whole episode was strictly referable to the exigencies of American 

politics. Upon this point there is a quaint thing to record. Somehow the City men got the idea that 

the Presidential election came next March, and the theory based on this that the whole flurry would 

be over within three months was so general Wednesday that the markets were scarcely affected that 

day. The change on Thursday came when the word was passed round that the elections were not to 

occur till November. 

As Englishmen in general have had to unlearn things and to comprehend that their easy-going, 

half-informed notion about American politicians twisting the lion’s tall did not fit this particular case 

at all, it has dawned on them here that the matter is one in which the American people are so 

230


profoundly in earnest that everybody, if necessary, will shoulder a musket to defend it. They have 

come to consider the issue respectfully and ask to be shown an honorable way out of the 

complication. There is no element of cowardice in this attitude, bear in mind. They would fight any 

European nation without any searchings of conscience at all, whether they were right or wrong, but 

they do recognize that if the whole American people stand out on a matter of principle Englishmen 

must act on an equally high level. 

Curiously enough, the news from the Continent that the foreign press is pretty generally 

denouncing the Monroe doctrine has an actual tendency to dispose Englishmen to think that it must 

be a better doctrine than they had supposed. This seeming paradox is very illustrative of the Briton’s 

general state of mind. The very idea that Frenchmen or Germans applaud and egg him on in a 

quarrel with Americans suggests to him that he is an ass to be engaged in any such quarrel. 

These Continental press opinions may not express in the least the attitude of the Continental 

Foreign Offices. Perhaps in Paris journalism is closest in contact with diplomacy, or, rather, exerts 

the largest influence on it, but there, as elsewhere, they do not mind saying contradictory things for 

the sake or fun and to disclose sportive enjoyment at an Anglo-American squabble rather than for a 

serious policy. It is said here that the Marquis of Salisbury has secured general European assent to 

the repudiation of the Monroe doctrine, and, as theoretical expressions of opinion, there is nothing 

improbable in this, but in practice it is of little value. If the Continental powers saw a profit to 

themselves in any emergency of England’s, they would not be restrained for a moment by any such 

consideration, and, on the other hand, the knowledge that Salisbury had committed England to a 

European league against the charter of immunity to the New World from the militarism of the Old, 

which Canning helped Adams and Monroe to formulate, would raise an overwhelming popular 

demonstration of wrath all over England. Nothing can be gathered from the Russian papers as to 

Russia’s intentions, but the French politicians assume with certainty that she will act in entire accord 

with France. 

I spent yesterday in the City among the bankers and brokers, who were getting bulletins minute 

by minute of the slaughter in American prices. I verified the fact that the mischief began by cabled 

selling orders from the New-York bears, but the heaviest share of the decline is ascribed to the 

throwing over of long stock. Ordinarily calm investors piled in their securities amid the general 

fright until no buyers could be round for anything. The talk among these men was not of a physical 

war, which everybody scouted as impossible, but of a financial war, which nothing now, in one way 

or the other, would check for weeks to come. Everybody repeated the rumor for a fact that people 

were betting that gold would be at a premium in New-York before the new year, but no one knew 

of a particular instance in which the wager was made here or there. Long-sighted men held the 

opinion that the ultimate result would be to put American finance on a better footing and so benefit 

everybody, but the popular view was that America would be drained of gold at once, forced into the 

hands of the silver crowd, and would lapse into a financial disorder which, even at best, it would 

take years to recover from. On all sides there was a general indignation at Moreton Frewen’s 

suggestion in The Times that America would begin hostilities, if the worst came to the worst, by 

confiscating five billions of British capital invested in America. . . 


231

21 – 23 December 1895 

- 152 - 

WHAT ENGLAND MIGHT LOSE BY WAR 

Ex-Gov. Campbell Says Only Scotland Would Be Left to Her 

Ex-Gov. James E. Campbell of Ohio was in the city yesterday. He was enthusiastic over 

President Cleveland’s Venezuelan message. 

“I have talked with some men since I came to New-York who say they do not like the message, 

but let them get off Manhattan Island and hear how the people are talking. The men I talked with at 

home were all in favor of it, and I believe that 90 percent of the people of this city are in favor of it, 

and that only those who think more or the dollar than they do of patriotism are not in favor of it. I 

am heartily in favor of everything President Cleveland has said in this matter!” 

Ex-Gov. Campbell was of the opinion, if England should go to war with the United States, an 

event which he sincerely hoped would be averted with honor, that after the war was over the British 

possessions would consist of England and Scotland. He left Ireland out. 


- 153 - 

VIEWS OF ENGLISH CLUBMEN 

Salisbury’s Stand Meets the Approval of Most of His Countrymen 

LONDON, Dec. 21.—In seeking to gauge the currents of public opinion, the representative of 

The United Press tried to ascertain what ideas prevailed at the leading clubs. The clubhouses are now 

comparatively empty, it being the recess time of Parliament and the eve of the Christmas holidays, 

but quite a number of town members were found. Getting in touch with several members of the 

Carlton, the great Conservative club, it was not surprising to find them concurring in the hope that 

Lord Salisbury would maintain his policy of no compromise, whatever might be the risk of war. The 

Tory land owners, inheriting the traditions of the party and personally interested in enhanced values 

for home-grown grain, are naturally the war party. Their dislike of the democratic institutions of the 

United States adds to the equanimity with which they regard a breach between the British and 

American peoples. 

At the Constitution club, a less exclusive organization than the Carlton, the opinions expressed 

were much the same. 

It was from the Reform Club, where Whigism still lingers with some strength, that The Speaker, 

whose comment was cabled yesterday to The United Press, got its inspiration. Sir I. W. Reid, the editor 

of that paper, is the centre of a clique belonging to this club which meets almost daily. The clique 

includes among its number some members of old Liberal Ministries, who still think themselves able 

to judge and guide public tendencies and who are still aiming to keep the party strings in their own 

hands. Within this circle President Cleveland’s message is resented as a diverting blow. The Liberals 

hoped to deal with Lord Salisbury’s policy in Turkey, while the message is certain to unite the nation 

in support of the Government in a moderate policy of resistance to the American claims. Chagrin 

232


over their lost game has helped to make the Reform Club members Jingoish. Their respect for the 

Earl of Kimberley, Secretary of Stale for Foreign Affairs in Lord Rosebery’s Cabinet, guides their 

approval of Lord Salisbury’s adherence to the Earl of Kimberleys line of action. 

At the National Liberal Club the dominant tone was one of regret that the quarrel would tend to 

alienate the peoples of the two countries, and lessen the influence of the United States here, and so 

lessen democratic progress in Great Britain. The National Liberal Club has more than 6,000 

members, and among them radicalism, merging with republicanism, prevails. The closest affiliation 

with the American people and with American ideas is their sincerest aspiration. There is no wonder, 

therefore, that intense disappointment has been caused by the message, which has occasioned an 

outburst of national antipathies that were supposed to have been long ago assuaged. 

The editorials published by The Chronicle which have been cabled day by day to The United Press, 

fairly represent the opinion prevailing at the National Liberal Club that a war between the two 

nations is impossible. The Radicals, despite the statement contained in The Speaker, credit Mr. 

Cleveland with being conscientious and honest, and believe that he is not influenced by party 

motives. They, however, consider his message as showing aberration of judgment. 

The representative of The United Press has essayed to ascertain the feeling in the workingmen’s 

political clubs, on which feeling the politicians here rely when organizing popular demonstrations. 

These clubs, though numbering their members by the tens if thousands, remain concealed from 

public view until there are periods of agitation, when party wire-pullers, finding it advisable to 

foment excitement, supply funds to call out the masses. Funds alone, however, would not evoke 

processions in Hyde Park, nor enthusiastic crowds in the great halls. The workingmen’s clubs can 

only be manipulated on the lines of their own tendencies. 

Selecting four of the most notable of these clubs, the inquiries of The United Press representative 

revealed the fact that there was an entire absence of excitement, and only a mild interest in the 

situation. While keenly alive to home politics, the average intelligence of the workingmen who are 

members of these clubs does not extend to Great Britain’s foreign relations. The Monroe doctrine, 

especially, is a hieroglyph to them, but they are sympathizers with America, and their belief in the 

justice of the American Government is profound. 

To sum up the result of the conversations had with several of the best-informed members of the 

clubs, it may be said that the opinion is that the men must learn more about the causes of the quarrel 

before there will be the smallest chance of their responding to party appeals for a demonstration for 

or against the Government. 

The recognition of the primary necessity for the spread of information on the subject has led the 

London weekly papers, which have a purely popular circulation, to set themselves in their issues of 

to-day to enlighten their readers. One of these papers, having a weekly issue of 700,000 copies, 

preludes its article with the admission that many Englishmen will learn for the first time through 

President Cleveland’s message that Great Britain has a boundary dispute with Venezuela, which it 

then proceeds to explain. The article concludes with an attack on Mr. Cleveland’s action as 

calculated to bring the principle of arbitration into contempt. 

Another of these papers, which has an enormous circle of readers in the operative and 

manufacturing centres, likewise expounds the Monroe doctrine, and then upholds President 

Cleveland as being in the right in insisting upon arbitration. It, however, denounces the “arrogant 

pretensions of the United States that in no part of America shall any one set foot except with the 

permission of the curious gang of corrupt politicians in Washington.” 

The paper adds: “Grant Ireland home rule, and we shall hear little of the Monroe doctrine.” 

233

21 – 23 December 1895 

Another Radical workingmen’s paper holds that it is impossible for the public to support a war 

on the question of the boundary of British Guiana or of teaching Uncle Sam better manners. It 

recalls how Lord Palmerston played the “Civis Romanus Sum” doctrine to get well with the crowd. 

Mr. Cleveland, it says, is using the Monroe doctrine in a similar manner as the last dodge of the 

beaten party. 

The most notable feature of the articles in these and other papers of the same class— 

Conservative, Liberal, and Radical alike—is the consensus of opinion that Great Britain cannot 

submit to the humiliation of accepting President Cleveland’s demands. 


- 154 - 

AID THE SMALL REPUBLICS 

Duty of the United States in the Venezuelan Dispute 

BRITAIN’S ACTION A MENACE TO US 

No Place for Monarchical Aggression on the Western Hemisphere— 

A Suggestion to the English 


It would be a pity if the Chamber of Commerce should be able to see nothing more in President 

Cleveland’s message than an injury to trade, a disturbance of the finances, or a senseless quarrel with 

a friendly nation and people of the same race and language. The Monroe doctrine had relation to 

two different systems of government as wide as the poles assunder in their effect on the security, 

happiness, and progress a mankind—the Republican or Democratic, system on the one hand, and 

the monarchical, or aristocratical, on the other. No greater boon (unless it be the advent of our 

Saviour) was ever conferred upon the human race than the successful establishment and working of 

the American Republic, for its service is not confined to the inhabitants and their descendants 

within its boundaries, but its example and power make thrones and tyrants tremble in the uttermost 

parts of the earth, and give hope and encouragement to the enslaved and downcast the wide world 

over.. 

The men who established this Government took no thought of their own merely selfish interests 

in entering upon and carrying through the struggle. If they had had regard only for these, the 

English monarchical system were good enough for purposes of mere personal ease and profit. So, 

with those who in Mexico and Central and South America have thrown off the yoke of Spain and 

Portugal and established republics in imitation at our own. In this work of removing the shackles 

from the minds and limbs of men, they are our brothers—our cause (the cause of mankind)—is a 

common one, and any menace or wrong to them is as well a menace and wrong to us. That in 

establishing these institutions of self-government, freedom, security, and progress on a solid 

foundation they have met with greater obstacles than we; that the proportion of the ignorant and 

grovelling of those seeking only their own ease and profit, and who have no care for their posterity 

or the advancement of civilization in the world, has been greater than with us, and, consequently, 

234


their progress, slower and sometimes halting, is no cause for surrender by them or by us of the 

principles for which we and they have nobly and cheerfully suffered and died, but rather a greater 

reason why we, the stronger, should succor them, the weaker, in any time of trial and trouble—on 

any occasion when the monarchical system shall be attempted to be extended or reimposed upon 

them accompanied with injustice and wrong, by a European Government whose greed and 

oppression of weaker peoples for its commercial and national gain, we, ourselves, have had an 

experience of, and which has in more recent years made itself hated and feared by every weak and 

struggling people In the world. 

The President’s message and the action of Congress thereon is, as it were, the service of notice 

on all European monarchical powers that their systems of government, so far as they exist on this 

continent, are barely tolerated, and that the peoples who have thrown off their yoke do not intend 

that a false, worn-out and wicked theory and system of government shall in this age of progress have 

any, the very least, toleration and encouragement from them, and that foreign Governments desiring 

to possess American soil can have no subjects here but free citizens only. With this condition an 

English, French, Spanish, or German European republic may have as many colonies, and rule as 

many people in the Western Hemisphere as they choose, with, of course, the consent of the people 

they govern, and the United States would have only congratulations to offer. 

As for England, let her make of Scotland two States, of Ireland two States, of Wales one State, 

of England two States, and locate the capital of this Republic, formed on the lines of the United 

States Constitution, in a portion of the interior of England set apart for this purpose in analogy to 

our District of Columbia, and then with a President, (perhaps the Prince of Wales) elected once in 

four or six years, it could keep forever its colonies on this side of the water and in perpetual 

friendship with the United States. The whole world, by these two great Republics, could, in a 

reasonable time, by their example, influence, and aid, be so completely transformed, compared with 

what it is to-day, as to be a heaven upon earth. 

SIGMA. 

New-York, Dec. 21, 1895. 


- 155 - 

CESSATION OF WAR TALK 

Venezuelan Question to be Settled Without Resort to Arms 

COMMISSIONERS NOT YET CHOSEN 

President Will Not Act Hastily, but Is Determined to Carry Out His Policy 

MORE TROUBLE MAY COME OVER ALASKA 

Firm Action Now Will Have a Good Effect on Great Britain in 

Any Future Controversy 

WASHINGTON. Dec. 22.—Sunday has brought to the people in Washington who a day or two 

ago were talking excitedly and prematurely of war an opportunity for rest and a lack of material 

upon which to feed their appetites. Assuming that matters growing out of the message of the 

235

21 – 23 December 1895 

President an the Venezuelan question were to be hurried to immediate conclusions, and that 

Executive approval of the Commission bill meant the prompt selection of the Commissioners and 

speedy consideration of the boundary dispute, there has been some curiosity concerning the choice 

of men to be made by the President. 

Lists of prominent persons have been published as having been preferred by the President. It is 

learned that there is no basis for announcing these names, except perhaps, the prominence of the 

men in public or political life. A man well qualified to speak of the matter said this afternoon that 

the President had not yet decided upon the Commissioners. He did not even have a list of those 

men from whom he would eventually select the Commissioners. It was not his intention to 

announce the commission to-morrow, and it might be several days before it will be announced. 

While the matter would be disposed of with promptness, it would not be hurried. The determination 

of the people and the Congress to resist aggressions by foreign nations upon the territory of 

American republics having been made known by the quick and unanimous action of the Congress, 

the Administration had been assured or public approval of its course, and that course would be 

pursued with due regard for justice and right. 

Republicans Not So Eager 

The Republicans, now that they have committed themselves to the Presidents support, and have 

since been confronted with the necessity of doing something to check the tide of speculation against 

American securities that has arisen abroad, are qualifying the patriotism that inspired them on 

Wednesday. Then they were all on fire for war. They could not say too much in approval of the 

entire message. Something of regret was discovered when it was predicted that the Senate would so 

provide for the selection on the boundary commission that it would be kept within the control of 

the dominant party in the House. The Senate was not so willing as had been expected to humor the 

Republican notion. 

Since the passage or the House bill in the Senate without a change flaws have been found in the 

President’s communication. New-England, oddly enough, suggests that it was too jingoish. Mr. 

Dingley, who is a discerning man, but who did not earlier discover that there was anything in the 

message that he disliked, now finds that there was. 

“It would have been disagreeable and would have created a bad impression,” he says, “to have 

objected to it at first. Our friends abroad might have obtained the impression that we were divided 

as a Nation on the Monroe doctrine if criticism had led to opposition to granting the request of the 

President for a commission of inquiry. Our patriotism would have been challenged. But the last two 

paragraphs of the Venezuelan message, talking of war, were bound to make trouble; they were not 

necessary; they have caused all the panicky feelings, and they have not added to the strength of our 

argument.” 

The Last Paragraphs Important 

Without the last paragraphs—the lines which at once aroused the patriotism of the country—the 

ultimate possible outcome at the controversy, in case Great Britain has determined to force it to a 

breach, would have been left to inference, and the men who are now beginning to remonstrate 

against too vigorous language from the President would have been prompt to accuse him of 

hesitation or with averting his face from a contingency that all would have been compelled to admit 

236


might arise. The result would undoubtedly have been a partisan demand that the President should 

speak out more plainly and say precisely what everybody felt. 

There is no expectation on the part of the Administration that the voice of the Americans who 

support Lord Salisbury rather than the President in this emergency will be so loud or impressive in 

England as to lead to the belief that it will justify the assumption that the English side will be taken 

by this Government, or that the American doctrine of self-preservation will be abandoned. Lord 

Salisbury, in his answer to Secretary Olney, has indicated the Ministerial belief that England might 

pursue a course which would not be obnoxious to that doctrine. 

Without regard to the war talk that has been an incident of the week, there is no doubt among 

the supporters of the President who accept his message as good in whole, as well as those who arc 

now beginning to peep their criticisms, that the effect produced upon the people by his strongest 

utterances, certainly will not lead the English Ministers to consider our traditional policy as less 

lightly held than they did when it was not expected that a reassertion of it with spirit would convulse 

the Nation. 

Good Reasons for Strong Words 

Those friends or the President who are more anxious to find justification for him than for Lord 

Salisbury, are confident that there will be abundant reason shown for the strongest words of his 

Venezuelan message. They believe that, with a less vigorous answer to Lord Salisbury, the British 

aggressions in Venezuela—extended against Venezuelan protest and our suggestions for 

arbitration—would have been insisted upon, and advanced in consequence of our complaisance and 

the opportunity for encroachment offered by diplomatic delicacy and delay, and that eventually we 

should have been compelled to assert the determination expressed by President Cleveland when the 

Venezuelans would have been deprived, by “occupation,” of more acres, which they may yet be able 

to hold because the British flag has not been unfurled over them. 

Several references have been made to the question of our Alaskan boundary, and the British 

occupation of lands supposed to be within the lines ceded to us when the Territory was purchased 

from Russia. The Government of the United States has been disposed to regard too lightly, it is now 

felt, the offers of Canadian authorities to perform police duty in the absence from our Alaskan 

property of American police prepared to protect the settlers who have gone into the Territory to 

seek gold. There are few Americans there. The British flag is there supported by armed Britons. 

The assumption has been, evidently, that when we care to ask the British to move out they will 

go, thankful for our kindness in having permitted them to work our gold mines so long. But if we 

acknowledge that occupation of Venezuelan territory by the British without the consent of 

Venezuela creates a title to the land, we shall have no case against Great Britain when we conclude 

that we want the Alaska territory the citizens of the Empire are now occupying. 

The dispute about the correct boundary line may not be in shape yet, but that is a mere matter of 

detail, about which the British will not concern themselves until they come to consider it. Then the 

delays of diplomacy will be invoked to enable the British still further to strengthen their claim, and 

the task or ousting the invaders will be indefinitely postponed. At all events the degree of respect to 

be looked for from Great Britain in treating upon that question will be to a greater on less extent 

affected by the manner in which we deal with the Venezuela question. 


237

21 – 23 December 1895 

- 156 - 

A WARNING TO ENGLAND 

One of Her Sons Discusses the Monroe Doctrine in a Distinctly 

Reasonable Sort of Way 

Godwin Smith in The Saturday Review 

The Monroe doctrine seems to have been of late the theme of active discussion in the British 

press, and to have been treated by different journals in different ways. Same journals seem to have 

treated it as an aggression, others as a fanfaronade, and others again as a hypothesis which they 

might safely concede in dealing with the Venezuelan question. By this time Englishmen must all 

know pretty well what the Monroe doctrine really is. They must be aware that there are, in fact, two 

doctrines comprised in the same message of President Monroe, cognate, yet distinct from each 

other, and directed as warnings to different powers. 

To Russia is directed the warning that the American continent is no longer to be regarded as a 

field for European colonization. To the Holy Alliance, which was inclined to meddle with the newborn 

republicanism of South America, is directed the warning that no European power can be 

allowed to interfere with the political self-development of American communities. In intimating that 

interference with the political freedom of the South American Republics will be regarded as an 

unfriendly act by the United States, Monroe manifestly claimed for his Republic a tutelary power. 

On the other hand, there is nothing in the massage that can be construed as a pretension to 

territorial aggrandizement on the part of the United States. 

Whether the Monroe doctrine thus stated is a part of international law seems not a very practical 

question. International law is a law without a legislature, without a policeman, and without a Judge. 

Its highest court of appeal is the cannon. The Monroe doctrine will be law if America is strong 

enough to enforce it. Louis Napoleon did not regard it as law, but he nevertheless had to accept it 

and retire from Mexico. In this respect it seems to stand on much the same footing as the European 

protectorate of Turkey, the guaranteed independence of Belgium, and other understandings 

respected in diplomacy, which rest, not on universal law, but on the readiness of the parties 

interested to fight for their enforcement. 

It is, however, not with the Monroe doctrine as formulated in the famous message that 

Englishmen are now in contact, and, if Mr. Chamberlain pursues his dream of imperial 

confederation, may be one day brought into collision, so much as with the Monroe sentiment. The 

Monroe sentiment imports that the New World shall be free from interference on the part of the 

Old World; that it shall be allowed to follow its own destinies, and to work out its own civilization; 

that it shall not be made the field or the highway of European war; but shall be left without 

molestation to dedicate itself to peaceful industry and the improvement of the human lot. There is in 

this, at all events, nothing of vulgar ambition or rapacity. 

Of mere territorial aggrandizement I have never in thirty years of intercourse detected the 

slightest desire in the American breast. The Americans refused San Domingo, they refused St. 

Thomas, and they would very likely have refused Alaska, it they could have done it without 

offending Russia, who had been their friend in the civil war. The land hunger, economical or 

political, fled with slavery. But the Monroe sentiment as to the independence of the continent has 

238


always seemed to me to be strong, and strong I believe it would be found by any one who should 

venture to defy it. 

It showed its force in the fixed resolution to eject Louis Napoleon and his Latin Empire from 

Mexico, while the Americans have never betrayed any disposition to annex Mexico themselves, easy 

as the acquisition would probably be. Nothing seems to be more certain than that Canada, if she 

were independent and chose so to remain, might rest in perfect security by the side of her mighty 

neighbor. Opinion in the United States is even divided as to the expediency of admitting her to the 

Union. If she is the object of any hostile feeling on the part of the Americans, it is not as an 

independent territory, but as the outpost and the entering wedge of European interference with the 

American continent. In that aspect she is always being presented to the Americans by the strongly 

British party here. 

Your military roads and the military harbor which Englishmen are constructing at Esquimault 

threaten the territory of the United States, though they are not constructed with that object. 

Esquimault threatens the whole Pacific coast, which at present is defenseless. The bombardment of 

the seaboard cities of the United States by English ironclads is a familiar subject of speculation. 

Hence naturally arises a desire on the part of the Americans to create a war navy; and that navy is, of 

course, directed against the only power from which they have anything to fear. People in England 

do not realize all this, nor do they hear the language which Canadian loyalty holds, or see the 

demonstrations to which it indulges on their behalf. 

Whether in case of war a sea power could well avail itself of a land route, and, in particular, 

whether the Canadian Pacific Railway, with the accidents to which a mountainous and sub-arctic line 

is exposed, could be trusted for the sure and rapid transmission of troops, are questions for the War 

Office to decide. 

What seems to me certain is that any attempt on the part of Great Britain to use the American 

Continent as a base or highway of war against a nation with which the United Sates were at peace 

would be apt to call the Monroe sentiment into active play. Englishmen have to consider, then, what 

would be the safety and value of a military road, exposed as the Canada Pacific Railway is, through a 

great part of its course, to the emissaries of any hostile power, against whose machinations it could 

be protected only by the most zealous vigilance on the part of the adjoining States. 

Some sidelights have recently been thrown upon these questions. The Canadian Commissioner 

says that the English is the only nation that treats its colonies commercially as foreign countries. Are 

not the English the only colonies which treat their mother country as a commercial enemy, laying 

protective duties on her goods? Englishmen have been given by a Canadian Minister to understand, 

in effect, that the imperial veto on colonial legislation is a practical nullity, however injurious to 

imperial interests that legislation may be, and that Canada will legislate for herself in commercial 

matters, with little regard to British expostulations. 

Even on such a question as copyright it is found that imperial unity does not exist. The refusal of 

the colonies to contribute to imperial armaments appears to be definitive. According to the colonial 

theories which have been broached in connection with the copyright question, the British 

Parliament is, in fact, only one of a number of local legislatures, all independent of each other, 

nothing being imperial except the nominal power of the Crown, the only prerogative of Great 

Britain being her sole responsibility for the general defense. If Mr. Chamberlain’s “dream” is, as he 

says, tending to become a reality, its approach is masked with great skill. 

These opinions, I fear, are not popular; but I know that they are those of an Englishman loyal to 

the interests and honor of his country. 

239

21 – 23 December 1895 


- 157 - 

SERMONS ON VENEZUELA 

Ministers Deprecate the Talk About Prospective War 

ENGLISH CLOSER THAN SPANISH 

It Would Be Civil War, Dr. Huntington Says—Dr. Parkhurst’s Position 

—A Horrible Crime, Dr. Eaton Declares 

WAR NOT A TEST OF PATIOTISM 

President Cleveland Declared to be In Favor of Peace—Commended by 

Dr. Chadwick and Others 

The leading preachers of this city and Brooklyn, as a rule, alluded to the Venezuelan question 

yesterday. Several took the question as a theme for their sermons. 

While some dwelt upon the horrors that must result from a war between the United States and 

England, none appeared to regard a resort to arms as among the probabilities. 

The duty of good citizens during the prevailing excitement was clearly pointed out and advice 

was volunteered by the clergymen, with a view to preventing disastrous financial results from the illconsidered 

war talk. 

IT WOULD BE A WAR OF BRETHEREN 

Dr. Huntington Says the English Are Closer to Us Than the Spanish 

The Rev. Dr. W. R. Huntington, rector of Grace Church, took for his text yesterday morning, 

Acts vii, 26: “Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye wrong to one another?” 

“These are the words,” he said, “of an acknowledged leader of men—no weakling, no 

sentimentalist, no timid peace-at-any-price-time-server, but a duly authenticated hero, monarch, if 

ever there was one—Moses, Adam’s son. 

And what is this that we hear Moses singing? It is nothing else than a solemn and pathetic 

protest against civil war. He has come down into Egypt fired with the zeal of a deliverer. His whole 

soul is bent upon the high task of breaking Pharaoh’s rod and leading his burdened countrymen out 

of their house of bondage. 

“To his dismay, to his disgust, he finds the people whom it has been his dream and prayer that 

he may help hopelessly at strife among themselves, ready for battle, not against the common foe, the 

task-master, but against each other. 

“He would have sanctioned, yes, patriot that he was, he would have led a war of Israel against 

Egypt—but war of Israel against Israel, war of brother against brother, that broke his heart. ‘Then 

fled Moses at this saying, and was a stranger in the land of Madian.’ 

“We, to-day, are threatened, vaguely indeed, but really threatened by the spectre of civil war, of 

all the calamities that can befall mankind the worst. If ever the Church of Christ had clearly laid 

upon her the duty of sounding out in her most persuasive tones, words of protest and remonstrance, 

it is to-day. 

240


“There is no time for half-hearted smoothnesses or non-committal common-place. Let the 

preacher speak his honest thought or hold his tongue. Let the world know where the Church stands, 

in so far as the pulpit has the power to state the fact. 

“‘Sirs, Ye are brethren.’ I have called this menace that is in the air a menace of civil war. I have 

done so from the conviction that any war waged between the two great branches of the Englishspeaking 

race would deserve that name, and could be correctly characterized by none other. 

“Brethren we are by blood, by language, by tradition, and any quarrel into which we suffer 

ourselves to be either enticed or dragged as mutual antagonists is, and from the the necessity of 

things must be, family quarrel. 

“I am quite aware that language of this sort is apt to call forth earnest protest from those who 

like to think that we have a civilization wholly of our own making, a civilization which dates from 

Bunker Hill and Yorktown, and in which Europe has neither lot nor part. 

“But we cannot thus airily snip the threads of continuity. Say what we will, do what we may, the 

history of America is a continuation of the history of Europe, and the history of the United States is 

especially a continuation of the history of England. 

“On Old World Battlefields New World issues were decided, and our National civilization is 

what it is, has the tone and color that it has, because in her eighteenth century wars against the great 

powers of the Continent, England came out victorious. 

“In those conflicts our fathers of the Colonies played their honorable part, and when it came to 

be a question of the un-English overriding of their own liberties, they were able to show that they 

had not been taught the arts of war in vain. 

“The National life of which we are so justly proud owes its being to the expansion of ideas 

which, in the closer atmosphere of the Old World, could not expand without explosion. Here there 

was more space, and what were only dreams in Europe found freedom to become facts in America. 

“Nevertheless, as concerns England and ourselves, the family heirlooms are the same. Law, 

language, and religion—where men have these in common they are of kin, and can no more get rid 

of their relationship by quarreling than brothers can shake off brotherhood by blows. 

“What have the Latin races in common with ourselves that can compare for a moment with the 

treasure in which the United States and England possess an undivided and indivisible inheritance? 

“Do you ask, How is it possible that monarchy and republic should be so close of kin? The 

answer lies in that appeal to fact which always overrides appeal to theory. 

“Is it not true that Tennyson and Lowell in their patriotic lyrics strike precisely the same note, 

and expect the same response? Is it a note which any French or Spanish poet could strike if he tried, 

or to which Frenchmen or Spaniards would respond were they to hear it struck? This is not said in 

disparagement of the ideals of the Latin races. Those ideals have a dignity and a sacredness of their 

own. 

“They may conceivably be better, even, than the ideals of the English-speaking peoples, but they 

are not the same. With the United Stairs and Great Britain the ideals are the same. Our political 

estimates, our ethical standards, our legal maxims correspond; the thoughts of Washington are as the 

thoughts of Alfred; the judgments of Marshall are as the judgments of Mansfield; Prescott and 

Motley, Irving and Parkman, speak as do Hallam and Freeman, Gardiner and Froude; and although 

our national hymns have each a wording of its own, we sing them to the same air. 

“Yes, strife between the United States and England must of necessity be fratricidal strife; war 

must be civil war. Is it worth while? Ought such a contest to be seriously thought of for a moment? 

Ought it to be even so much as named among us, or counted among possible contingencies?” 

241

21 – 23 December 1895 

Dr. Huntington said it would be inappropriate to enter upon a discussion of the merits of the 

political question at issue. He said, however, that where a “doctrine” was involved, nothing was 

more important than that we should distinguish the shell and the substance of the doctrine. We 

should endeavor to determine what the framers or the doctrine meant. 

NO WAR, DR. PARKHURST SAYS 

England and the United States Should Rescue the Armenians 

The Rev. Dr. Charles H. Parkhurst, in his sermon at the Madison Square Presbyterian Church 

yesterday, alluded to the Venezuela question, and denounced the idea of war between the United 

States and Great Britain. 

Dr. Parkhurst dealt with the nativity of Christ, which, he said, came with great abruptness on the 

world. The pages of history showed that great events came sometimes very suddenly, and that we 

are liable at any moment to be on the edge of a great surprise. 

“And it always seems as though there were a Providence,” he continued, “in the way in which 

the Christmas days synchronize this year with events that are just now filling our hearts with 

disturbance and throwing an uncomfortable shadow around the track of the near future. 

“We do not care to beat about the bush in this matter, but prefer to go straight to the mark by 

saying that, if Christendom wants to make the religion of Jesus, with its Bethlehem, its angelic choir, 

and its anthem of peace on earth, a laughing stock to the ungodly and a contempt to the heathen, 

the best thing it can do will be to set the two foremost Christian nations of the earth to work 

blowing up one another’s cities and blowing out one another’s brains. 

“Unless we utterly misconceive the sentiment of the Christianized masses, both here and on the 

other side of the water—I say unless we utterly misconceive that sentiment as it seems to be 

asserting itself in soberer second thought, such an issue will be morally impossible. But the Church 

must now move to the front. 

“There will be no conflict that will go beyond the point of messages and pronunciamentos on 

either side it the Church of the Bethlehem Christ comes and record its veto. Christianity, both here 

and in England, is too thoroughly a part of the national life for armies and navies to clash in warfare 

at the same moment that the churches of the two countries are thundering for peace. 

“We are not here to discuss the international technicalities of the case. This is not the place to 

enter into a philosophical or historic exposition of the Monroe doctrine: only it is safe to say that 

this Nation is not going to be drawn into an international conflict of arms, to the dishonor of 

Christianity, the discouragement of civilization, the destruction of life and treasure, and the 

demoralization of our entire organic life, in behalf of a doctrine such as probably 90 percent of a 

congregations well-informed as this would not be able to state intelligibly, and the other 10 percent, 

who can state it, disagreeing among themselves as to whether the doctrine is applicable to the 

present situation. 

“We are not speaking in disparagement of loyalty to country or of patriotic regard for our 

country’s rights. 

“Patriotic passions are intense, and can easily be fired to the point where righteousness is 

ignored and reason and balanced consideration tabooed, and that Is the mischief of inflammatory 

sheets, that make a paying newspaper business of fanning the flames of international animosity. I 

wish, for two weeks, that it could be a State offense to print newspaper headlines with anything 

larger than small caps. 

242


“If the nations would take up first the business that belongs to them, and if England and the 

United States join hands in the rather more Gospel enterprise of rescuing pillaged and outraged 

Armenia from the dirty, bloody grip of the Turk, these two brothered nations would then find 

themselves in good Christian condition of spirit, probably to settle that little question of civil 

engineering down in Venezuela in a way that would save both parties not only their pride and their 

heads, but their Christian repute. 

“It two Christian men were to commence punching one another’s heads and tearing one 

another’s eyes with no clearer idea of what it was all about than the American people would have in 

plunging into war over the Venezuela boundary, unless with a better understanding of the matter in 

dispute and with further efforts at adjustment, we should call it an ignominious row, a disgrace both 

to intellect and decency, let alone professions of Christianity. 

“We have not in this discussed the international merits of the question, but the point is where 

the question is between two Christian peoples—that fact will itself, if passion is ruled out, determine 

the quality of handling that will be given to the question, and will either show the point in 

disagreement to be so small as not to be worth fighting about or so two-sided as to admit of a 

settlement that will be reasonably satisfactory to both parties. 

“May, then, these Christian days and all their holy memories and suggestions be blessed to the 

President of the United States and those associated with him in authority, and to the Premier of 

Great Britain and those associated with him in authority, and the solid sense and Christian 

consideration of the two peoples, respectively, that are back of them rise to dignity of the occasion, 

shape themselves to the world-wide situation and the eternal spirit of peace on earth and good will 

toward men, achieve its own sweet and bloodless victory to the promotion of national prosperity, to 

the strengthening of international bonds of amity, and to the honor and glory of Christ, who was 

born once in Bethlehem, that He might make the whole earth His own forever.” 

CONSIDERS WAR A HORRIBLE CRIME 

The Rev. Dr. Eaton Says It Should Be the Last Resort 

The Rev. Dr. Charles Eaton of the Church of the Divine Paternity preached yesterday on 

‘Christianity and War.” “Peace an earth and good-will to men,’ he said, would be the inspiration for 

his sermon. 

“As the birthday of the Prince of men approaches,” he said, “there is great activity among our 

statesmen, and the mutterings of war are heard throughout the land. There is talk of increasing the 

size of our army and strengthening our fortification; and it is threatened that, unless there is a 

satisfactory answer to our contention, a serious breach in the peace of the world will ensue. The 

breach is all the more significant because of the two great nations involved. 

“Attempts have been made to substitute arbitration for war as a means of settling disputes 

between nations. Our own Chief Magistrate was requested to participate in the peaceful scheme of 

adjudicating momentous questions between different countries, and gave his consent at the time the 

matter was brought up. 

“It is not for me to decide whether the underlying principles on which our Government rests 

have been assailed. Whether the present attitude of Great Britain is to violate the principles of our 

Government is for our statesmen to answer, not only to their constituents, but to God. But a 

minister has a duty to perform. He has duties as a teacher of the Gospel, and may say there is no 

higher authority than the principles of Christianity. 

243

21 – 23 December 1895 

“It is contended that a minister may only deal with the academic phase of the matter; it is then 

time to relegate Christianity to the shelf. The Church is in a measure responsible for the principles of 

men. 

“As a minister of the Gospel, I desire to enter my earnest protest against war being the way of 

settling the momentous question now being discussed, and I speak according to the grand principles 

that govern alike the American and English peoples. 

“I believe there have been certain wars in the history of this country that were inevitable and 

unavoidable. I hold that the War of the Revolution and the civil war were justified. 

“Every act by which a nation is precipitated into a fratricidal slaughter, where a declaration of 

war is made without exhausting every other possible measure of adjusting the difficulty, is contrary 

to the teaching of Christianity. 

“I beg you to remember that war, despite every refinement of the nineteenth century, is horribly 

cruel. Our noble Washington said that so many atrocities were committed on both sides during the 

Revolution that he could not and would not write the history. Cannot the destruction of so many 

lives and so much property be avoided? 

“Let us not forget that the Revolutionary War was not declared until every possible way was 

tried to avoid paying the iniquitous taxation imposed by Great Britain. Let us remember the evil 

following a call to arms. You and I can remember how long the Nation waited before striking the 

blow to preserve the Union. Not until Sumter was fired on and the Stars and Stripes were trampled 

upon, did the Government go to war. 

“The American people will never support their representatives in measures of war until every 

possible way of adjusting the dispute has been utilized. There is a terrible waste, a terrible 

degradation in war. Did you ever calculate the loss caused by war in this century? 

“There have been 4,250,000 lives sacrificed by war during the nineteenth century. That is more 

than eight times the population of Venezuela blotted out by war. It cost our Nation $40,000,000 to 

fight Indians in Florida, and it cost us $50,000,000 for the war of 1812. 

“It cost $3,471,000,000 for our civil war, and more hundreds of millions for interest on the debt 

and in pensions for the war. That money would have bought all the lands in the world, and would 

have built schools and churches to educate and Christianize all the people of the world. We do not 

take prudential action unless we heed the advice of Christian doctrine. 

“I heed with interest the statement of Benjamin Franklin, when he said that, if statesmen were 

more inclined to calculate the results of warfare they would hesitate before declaring war against 

another country. I believe that war is a most horrible crime, and I would cry from the housetops: 

‘Peace! Peace! Peace!’ 

“Had you conceived what war means when you cried out that we should not tolerate the 

pretensions or claims of England? Have you forgotten the information furnished by our penal 

institutions that, since our last war, there has been an immense increase of crime in consequence, 

and crime of a violent kind? 

“Have you forgotten the increase of sin accompanying the increase of luxury, extravagance, and 

disorder n the industrial world, which the war was largely responsible for? To make war is to open 

the gates of hell and our on us a storm of iniquity and wrath. 

“Oh, men! I hear you in public places cry out: ‘Let us be patriotic!’ but true patriotism does not 

consist in plunging a country into an inconsiderate war. 

“God forbid that we should sacrifice our character through pusillanimity; that we should 

sacrifice love of country for gain of stocks and bonds; but God forbid that we should try war until 

244


we have exhausted every honorable means of settling the difficulty! We are not willing to sacrifice 

our commerce, our sons, and daughters to maintain a point in controversy. War is a cruelty against 

the mind, soul, and body of humanity.” 

The speaker said it was unjustifiable for a man meeting another on the street to knock him 

down, and when the fallen man has arisen to take him by the hand and express a willingness to argue 

the matter in dispute. 

“It is our duty,” he continued, “to cry to every statesman never to make a menace to a foreign 

nation, until he knows what war is, and has made every argument to avoid it, and he can say, ‘I am 

sorry for this, but I believe war is necessary for the country’s honor.’ 

“The supposed haughtiness and arrogance of England should not be pretexts for war. When the 

merits of the dispute have not been clearly explained, and approved by just men, a warlike attitude is 

not justifiable. The sword is not the final and most effective argument of international disputes, but 

the love of brotherhood and humanity should be the predominating influence.” 

WAR NOT A TEST OF PATRIOTISM 

The Rev. Dr. Ramsay Pleads for Peace and Prosperity 

The Rev. James S. Ramsay, pastor of the Harlem Presbyterian Church, One Hundred and 

Twenty-fifth Street and Madison Avenue, in the course of his sermon yesterday morning, said, 

concerning the Venezuelan dispute: 

“It is needless to say that the message of our worthy President has startled this country and 

stirred it as nothing else has done since the firing on Fort Sumter. It has evoked a burst of patriotism 

from every quarter of our land, patriotism glorious in its universality, its spontaneity, its promptness, 

its marvelous unifying force. 

“But is this magnificent torrent of National enthusiasm only to be used to sweep us on to an 

awful war? Must we forget whether the cause be great or trivial, merely to show our patriotism and 

courage? 

“Patriotism is love of country, and should not that love, true to its nature, seek to gain the best 

for its land? And if the best can be gained by peaceful diplomacy, without the death and desolation 

produced by war is not that the proper course, as well as the wisest policy? The most costly price 

any country can pay for any desired object is war, and it should see to it that the object is worthy of 

the outlay, since even victory gained in the interest of an ignoble cause is clouded for all time. 

“Our country has had four great wars, excluding those with Indians, and, measured by the 

standard that the object and gains must be worthy the sacrifice, and that no peaceful method could 

accomplish the desired result, only two of them stand the test, the war of the Revolution and the late 

civil war; the first for our country’s creation, the second for its preservation. But posterity has 

stubbornly refused to indorse fully the Mexican war, while in the second conflict with Great Britain 

we gained some glory, but more graves; and after all peaceful methods were used to gain the few 

results after the war in the appointment of Commissioners to adjust the claims. 

“In the light of past history we must now ask, Have all justifiable measures for peace been used 

in this issue? Is the object that looms before us as the prize worth the collision and bloody battle of 

the two foremost Christian nations of the earth, which may lead to the convulsion of the civilized 

world? 

“We venture to assert that even with the seeming rebuff of England, diplomacy might have 

continued its efforts rather than give up at once and force a crisis with unseemly haste. And, then, 

245

21 – 23 December 1895 

again, is the definite object one that should of itself make us willing and eager to appeal to arms? Are 

we ready to sacrifice the best blood and treasure of this country to secure a strip of land to a petty 

Spanish republic of little better than mediaeval civilization and subject to periodical revolutions? 

“Admitting the importance of the political doctrine supposed to be involved, may we not 

concede that there may be honest doubts on both sides of the Atlantic regarding its scope and 

applicability, and continue peaceful negotiations? If it took us more than fifteen yean to settle our 

own boundary question, by persistent negotiations, why rush at once to the edge of war to adjust the 

boundary line of another country 1,200 miles from our nearest point? 

“Let us be ready for the direst necessities and true to our country’s highest interest, but let us, at 

the same time, pray and hope and believe that American statesmanship may be equal to American 

patriotism, and that Providence will guide it to a peaceful settlement on these questions that now 

perplex our country and presage the shedding of costly blood.” 

PRESIDENT CLEVELAND COMMENDED 

The Rev. Lyman Ward Says He Has Asked for Peace, Not War 

The Rev. Lyman Ward, pastor of the Second Universalist Society of Harlem, which meets at 82 

West One Hundred and Twenty-sixth Street, preached yesterday from the theme, “Ring in the 

Valiant Man and Free.” In the course of his sermon he said: 

“There will be no war with England. Mark that. The United States does not want war. Great 

Britain does not want war, least of all with us. The memory of 1776 and 1812 is still with those two 

great nations. 

“President Cleveland has not asked for war. He has asked for peace. In the dignified yet 

courteous message to Congress by the President he asks for the privilege of appointing a 

commission to inquire into the difficulty existing between England and Venezuela. That is what he 

asks for. Who can object to it? 

“The ‘Monroe doctrine’ must be upheld. Mr. Cleveland has simply demonstrated to the world 

that, as Chief Executive of our Republic, he desires to see justice done to a sister republic. 

“Our President has taken a noble stand. He will be supported by every loyal citizen of every 

party. Congress, with conspicuous unanimity, approves the message and makes a generous 

appropriation for the use of the Venezuelan commission. 

“The disputed territory is rich in minerals. It is a strategic point in South America and has been 

long in dispute. Were Venezuela to pay the indemnity that Great Britain demands it would be a tacit 

affirmation of Britain’s boundary line. She therefore, refuses. The Monroe doctrine of seventy years’ 

standing is attacked. We defend it—that is all. 

“We want peace to ourselves and to our neighbors. We stand by the Monroe doctrine. If it can 

be had by peace Commissioners well and good; if not—well, we stand by the President and 

Congress and the Monroe doctrine. The greatest Christian Republic that the world has ever known 

believes in the Golden Rule.” 

DR. ABBOT PRAISES ENGLAND 

A congregation that entirely filled Plymouth Church assembled last evening to hear what the 

Rev. Dr. Lyman Abbott would say in connection with the excitement incidental to the President’s 

message on the Venezuelan question. 

246


In his prayer Dr. Abbott asked that all might be led to seek that which is just and right and that, 

if it is possible, this people live at peace with all men—it a peace with honor, with purity, and with 

righteousness—and that self-control and moderation be given to all in the present crisis. 

He then announced that Plymouth Church will consider the situation, and, after a public hearing 

on it on Friday evening, will pass such resolutions as the church members may favor. 

Dr. Abbot expects to speak tonight in Cooper Union on the Venezuelan question. 

Dr. Abbott, in his sermon last night, spoke of the commercial depression from which the 

country is recovering, and mentioned the excitement that the message produced last week. After 

telling how deeply and strongly he felt on the subject of war, he said: “We need more light, but not 

with a combative spirit.” 

Venezuela, he said, had never been a republic in more than name. It is ruled, he declared, by a 

Church of old-time barbarism and of a reactionary character. England is a republic in everything but 

name that spread enlightenment wherever it went, even though it often ruthlessly took possession of 

foreign lands. 

The land in dispute, he said, was for the most part a barren wilderness, and the probability of 

war was but a shadow of a shadow. 

England, he declared, should arbitrate, and does wrong in refusing—even though she consents 

to arbitrate up to a certain point. 

Dr. Abbott read from the President’s message, and by way of comment said: “This country 

proposes to say hereafter: ‘We will assume the functions or an international court in regard to South 

American affairs’.” 

He read from Secretary Olney’s message, and said it was “a bugaboo to frighten children with.” 

He made light of it, spoke of the country’s unprotected condition, and said: “In another hundred 

years we will make the American people the greatest, most potent empire in the world.” 

He expressed a wish that England might absorb all the Spanish-American republics except 

Brazil, as it would be a means of advancing civilization if it were to do so, 

He said he did not believe our National peace, prosperity, or honor depended upon the course 

that Mr. Cleveland has pursued, and that it is not probable that England is entirely right or wholly 

wrong. 

“The question is,” he said, “Are we appointed to make her do what is right? Should we police 

the whole of South America?” 

He read from Webster and others on the Monroe doctrine and declared that although it was 

suggested by England’s Minister, Mr. Canning, it had no legal or Constitutional binding power, had 

drifted into the past, and had no bearing on a question between a republic only in name and a nation 

that is a republic in all but name. Then he said that if a great wrong was being done it would be the 

duty of this country to intervene. 

The hostility toward England, the mother country, he said, was not entirely without reason. He 

instanced the war between England and this country, and said that all this country is England made 

it. Supporting this statement he mentioned Magna Charta and the House of Commons, after which 

and upon which this country’s great institutions are founded. He eulogized England and said: 

“Together England and America may wrap the world round with liberty and fill it with peace.” 

He pictured the horrors of war, and said: 

“Our glory is a glory of peace, and our prosperity is due to almost 100 years of peace, and we 

will not sacrifice peace if peace can be maintained with honor.” 

Dr. Abbott was frequently applauded, and received much applause when he ceased speaking. 

247

21 – 23 December 1895 

DOES THE MONROE DOCTRINE APPLY 

Mr. Cadman Says South America May Resent an Interference 

The Rev. S. Parks Cadman, in the Central Metropolitan Methodist Church, Seventh Avenue 

between Thirteenth and Fourteenth Streets, last evening spoke on “Peace or War with England.” 

“I wish it were possible,” he said, “to admit that this question of peace or war is lifted above the 

contending factions, national and international. All ambitions for ascendancy, sobriety, and 

soundness of judgment are largely absent from the discussion of the Venezuelan question. Some of 

the hysterical shriekings of the daily press are an outrage upon decency and a disgrace to our boasted 

civilization. 

“Concerning the Monroe doctrine, legalists and statesmen dispute widely as to its significance 

and application to the boundary question between Great Britain and Venezuela. It was created by 

our fears for the future of the whole continent when threatened by the Holy Alliance. Great Britain 

aided in its inception when we were a people only 9,000,000 strong. 

“If it means we are the practical sovereigns of the two continents of North and South America 

then war with England will be the first incident in and bloody struggle to enforce a claim that many 

other nations, including the South American republics, will resent. 

“I do not believe we are prepared to purchase supremacy, either nominal or actual, over the 

South American republics at the cost of our felicitous existence, whose high level is the glory of 

modern civilization. If by peaceful means the two continents may be brought in touch with our 

influence, the destiny of our Republic and the race at large will gain, and with the passage of time 

Canada will be one with us, beneath one flag. But, rather than that this should come upon the 

reeking edge of sword, let us remain as we are, and move on in our providential path as a people, 

non-destroying and indestructible. 

WAR NOT EVEN A POSSIBILITY 

But the Rev. Dr. Virgin Thinks Examination Will Do No Harm 

The Rev. Dr. Samuel H. Virgin, pastor of the Pilgrim Congregational Church, Madison Avenue 

and One Hundred and Twenty-first Street, spoke on the possibilities of war with Great Britain at the 

services yesterday morning. 

“The President, in his strong feeling about the boundary line of the South American republic,” 

he said, “or in his devotion to the Monroe doctrine, or for some other reason to himself sufficient, 

may seem to threaten war, but the people will smother this sentiment under their rich and 

abounding declarations of affection for our kindred across the sea. 

“A commission may examine facts and deliberate upon measures, and the ripe fruit of nineteen 

hundred years of Christian teaching will appear in the righteous and peaceful issue of their 

deliberations. If the Monroe doctrine has nothing to do with this country, it should be known and 

declared. Examination will do no harm. Venezuela and her rights are dear to us, so are the rights of 

Great Britain and the mother country itself. With interests of every character interlocked and with 

the noblest possessions of a common Christianity held equally dear to both, war is not for a moment 

to be dreamed of as a possibility. 

“Misunderstanding may arise for a season and lead to a debate and Presidential proclamations 

and a disturbed money market and immeasurable evils, but war between these nations would be the 

giant crime of the centuries. 

248


The intervention of this Christmas celebration must touch with healing charm the roused 

antagonisms, and blend all hearts in one common prayer for wisdom and one common purpose for 

instant and peaceful adjustment of this question of international concern. 

“A nation’s honor must be maintained, but this is consonant with peace in the light of the 

Christian principles by which nations are guided. We want no cries of jingoism. 

“We want no wholesale denunciations of our Chief Magistrate in endeavoring to uphold the 

principles that have governed us for many years. It was pertinent for him to speak after lengthened 

and unsuccessful correspondence. We need prudent councils, a calm and deliberate temper, and a 

statesmanship solid with true patriotism and heavenly wisdom. We need a broad generosity that will 

check the excitement that speculators will increase, and a financial skill alert and effective to stay 

further monetary evils. 

“The American people are opposed to war with Great Britain, and send her to-day salutations of 

Christian affection from sixty-six millions of hearts, and sing “God Save the Queen,’ while they 

make the welkin ring with their song of: 

‘My country, ‘tis of thee, 

Sweet land of liberty, 

Of thee I sing.’ 

“Let Lord Salisbury find some answer to the message of our President that shall shine with a 

loftier Christianity, that will show the path of honorable agreement, and the people or both realms 

will acknowledge his master spirit. 

“Let Mr. Cleveland rise above himself and issue another message higher, wiser, free from the 

suggestion of the possibility of armed conflict, discarding all hostile intent. 

“Ere this Christmas celebration pass, let the united voices sing in unison for the nations of the 

world to hear the angels’ song” ‘Peace on earth, good will to men’.” 

NO CONCERN OF OURS ANYWAY 

The Rev. Dr. Stimson Denounces the Action Regarding Venezuela 

The sermon of the Rev. Dr. Henry A. Stimson at the Broadway Tabernacle Church yesterday 

was devoted almost entirely to the Venezuelan question. 

“It seems like a travesty on Christmas,” he said, “that we should find ourselves in the Lord’s 

house to-day, with our minds and the minds of the people filled with the talk of war. That a 

Christian nation should be assembled to worship the Prince of Peace in the same breath with which 

it is uttering braggart bluster which, if it means anything, is threat of war; that it should be assembled 

to worship one Wonderful, a Counselor, in the very hour in which we are giving place to a folly so 

supreme that the world stands amazed at it; at a time of extreme National strain, when anxiety has 

sat in the homes of our people for more than two years, and business has been paralyzed and 

industries have stood still, and the fields of the farmer are loaded with crops for which there is no 

market, and when our whole financial system is built upon a basis so unstable that it has not been 

changed only because of the tremendous peril attending such a task; that at such a time this Nation 

should be suddenly diverted from its anxious but peaceful labors by public action that involves, even 

as a remote possibility, the horrors of war, is a situation so amazing, so preposterous, that one finds 

it difficult to get speech that will do it justice. 

249

21 – 23 December 1895 

“The $100,000 precipitately voted for an investigation in which we have no concern, and the 

outcome of which has no visible value, except possibly to get us out of a difficulty which we have 

created for ourselves, and the $100,000,000 lost as a consequence in the panic of a single day, arrest 

our careful attention. Would that it were but a ‘midsummer madness!’ 

“And what is it all about? A boundary dispute in which we have not the remotest concern, a 

question of fifty years’ standing, to be precipitated upon the country in a form which, whether it was 

intended or not, brings the alarm of war and not only the business interests of our own country, but 

the business interests of the world, into confusion, carrying loss and ruin into innumerable homes. 

“There have been sad hours in the history of the United States in the past—hours of irreparable 

loss, hours that brought the horrors of civil war in their train, hours that entailed commercial distress 

and widespread ruin from which the land did not recover for years, but there have been few hours 

of panic so needless and of shame so mortifying. 

“Of course, we are not going to fight! War among great nations is fast becoming obsolete. 

Would to God that its very dialect should disappear from English speech. But when all Europe 

stands like hounds strained in the leash, and the industries of the civilized world are consumed in 

maintaining standing armies so large as to almost neutralize man’s labors, who shall fitly characterize 

the reckless folly that would hurl even an apple of discord into the arena of the world’s debate, or 

utter bitter and braggart speech that would precipitate strife?” 

DEMAGOGUES SHOUTING FOR WAR 

The Rev. Madison C. Peters Says No Fighting Is Necessary 

At the Bloomingdale Reformed Church yesterday morning, the Rev. Madison C. Peters preached 

on “Civilization’s Debt to Christianity.” In the course of his sermon, which was mainly devoted to 

an exposition of the lessons of the Christmas season, he referred to the possibilities of a conflict 

with England. 

“War is cruel, hateful wrong,” he said. ““War is hell. The political demagogues who at this 

Christmastide are shouting for war, will be branded by the second sober thought of the American 

people as the criminals of the nineteenth century. 

“A war between England and America could never be terminated until one or the other went 

into bankruptcy or had no more men to fill the ranks. When the time comes that there is a necessity 

for war, when we are encroached upon or attacked, then there will be a prompt response from the 

American people to defend the flag. 

“What sane man believes that such a necessity exists at the present time? If we are to have war, 

let it be on one condition—that the men who are now shouting for it be the first ones compelled to 

go to the front. 

“As a preacher of the Gospel of peace and universal brotherhood, I call for arbitration. ‘Blessed 

are the peacemakers.’ I pray that England and America may look across the centuries and hear the 

angels’ proclamation—‘On Earth Peace; Good Will Toward Men’.” 

BELIEVES IN THE PRESIDENT 

The Rev. J. W. Chadwick, However, Counsels Avoidance of War 

“Peace or War?” was the subject of the sermon of the Rev. J. W. Chadwick yesterday morning in 

the Second Unitarian Church, Brooklyn. He said, in part: 

250


“‘Peace on earth, good will to men’,” said Mr. Chadwick. “That is a sentiment so pure and high 

that it would have preserved any legend. Who shall say it did not preserve the legend of the birth 

and was preserved by that legend? 

“It may not be a controlling factor in international law now. But I believe there has been more 

peace in the world than there would have been if that rebuke to war had not stared nations in the 

face for over eighteen centuries. 

“First in peace seems to be unsatisfactory at present. Some people think war, though, shows 

evolution of the race; another factor that makes warlike spirit is the growing strength of the Nation. 

Still another is the hope or gain nurtured by those who would feed on the distress of the Nation. 

“But the greatest factor of all is the passionate idealization of war—our belief in our own 

glorious victory. There are some who can see only one side of war— the killing of men by their 

fellows. But these are in small numbers, perhaps. The literature of war is fascinating, because of the 

splendid courage portrayed. The terrible beauty of war lies in this. But is there anything in the 

history of our late memorable war that would not make us hate it and shun it? 

“There is an old German proverb—‘Every war leaves behind it an army of heroes, an army of 

cripples, and an army of thieves.’ We had all these after our war. Besides, it left legacies that are 

hurtful even now. Our financial system represents the result of the country’s endeavors to help itself 

in a time of sore need. 

“War is to be avoided if possible, as one would avoid the gate of hell. Between supine 

submission to wrong and war’s dread alternative, there are stations which will admit to settlement 

with honor to both nations, and I hope we shall stop at one of these. 

“I deprecate ascribing unworthy motive to the President. I have known him too long to believe 

the charges which are coming now even from the house of his friends. I dismiss, without a 

moment’s consideration, such attacks upon Mr. Cleveland’s honesty of purpose” 


- 158 - 

THE SERVICE PATRIOTIC 

Ex-Minister Straus’s View of the Venezuelan Message 

PRESIDENT CLEVELAND COMMENDED 

Monroe Doctrine Must Be Upheld—Lord Salisbury Accused of 

Overstepping the Bounds of Ordinary Propriety 

Oscar S. Straus, formerly United States Minister to Turkey, has for many years devoted much 

time to the study of international questions which figure in the diplomatic business of this country. 

With considerable emphasis he indorses the position of President Cleveland on the Venezuelan 

question. 

He maintains that the restatement of the Monroe doctrine as being the American doctrine was a 

necessary and wise thing. 

To a reporter for the The New-York Times, ex-Minister Straus yesterday pointed out some 

important facts in connection with the Venezuelan boundary dispute. 

251

21 – 23 December 1895 

“The Monroe doctrine was neither inspired by the stock market nor stimulated by the price of 

cotton,” said Mr. Straus. “It was the ultimatum of a patriotic people, in times at peace, to preserve 

the integrity of our institutions in safety and honor. 

“President Monroe said, ‘We owe it to candor and to amicable relations between the United 

States and the powers, that we would consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to 

any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.’ This declaration was hailed 

with approval and satisfaction by the Government and people of England, and served to confirm 

the establishment of free Governments on this continent, no less than it served as a harbinger of 

peace for the nations of Europe. 

“Mr. Cleveland’s message, which clearly defines the scope, meaning, and continuing vitality of 

our American policy, was not only demanded at this time, but a sense of candor and in order to 

avoid causes for conflict between us and Great Britain made it a duty that we should not leave her in 

doubt as to our policy. 

“When President Monroe, in 1823, submitted to Jefferson the correspondence relating to the 

designs of the Holy Alliance to intervene in South America, he answered: ‘The question presented is 

the most momentous which has ever been offered to my contemplation since that of Independence 

Our first and fundamental maxim should be never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe; our 

second, never to suffer Europe to intermeddle with cis-Atlantic affairs.’ 

“The dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela involves territory two-thirds as large as the 

State of New-York, and the control of the mouth and 400 miles of the Orinoco River, which is the 

Mississippi of Venezuela. 

“Whatever may be the respective rights of the two countries, it is sufficient to say that while the 

claims of Great Britain have been from the beginning steadfastly resisted by Venezuela, they have 

been growing larger and larger until they have doubled in area in the past fifty years. Venezuela has 

constantly pressed for arbitration, while Great Britain has constantly shifted her boundary line 

westward, so that it resulted in 1887 in the rupture of diplomatic relations between the two 

countries. 

“Our Government has not been an indifferent spectator during all these years. On the contrary, 

our good offices have been liberally tendered. Again, in 1891, President Harrison, in his message, 

alluded to the subject in the following terms: “I should have been glad to announce some favorable 

disposition of the boundary dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela touching the western 

frontier of British Guiana, but the friendly efforts of the United States in that direction have thus far 

been unavailing. This Government will continue to express its concern at any appearance of foreign 

encroachment on territories long under the administrative control of American States. The 

determination of a disputed boundary is easily attainable by amicable arbitration when the rights of 

the respective parties rest, as here, on historic facts readily ascertainable. 

“Venezuela has, time and again, pending these negotiations between her and Great Britain, asked 

for our friendly offices to aid in bringing about arbitration, and promptly advised our Government 

of British encroachments. In 1888 Secretary Bayard instructed Mr. Phelps to say to Lord Salisbury, 

in view of the widening British pretensions, ‘If, indeed, it should appear that there is no fixed limit 

to the British boundary claim, our good disposition to aid in a settlement might not only be 

defeated, but be obliged to give place to a feeling of grave concern.’ 

“The forcible possession by Great Britain of this territory is not measured by its area, though as 

large as above stated, but by the fact that the control of Barima commands the mouth of the 

Orinoco River and its tributaries. The naval power in possession of this river could control the trade 

252


as well as the destinies of Peru, Bolivia, Brazil, the Argentine Republic, and in fact the whole of 

South America. 

“Secretary Olney, under the direction of the President, in his dispatch to Mr. Bayard of the 20th 

of July, (a copy of which, as is usual, was left with the British Prime Minister,) went exhaustively into 

the entire subject, pointing out with painstaking fullness the importance of the subject to this 

country, and in what respect it conflicted with our policy and interest. It was nowhere claimed that 

the Monroe doctrine was a principle of international law, but stress was laid upon the fact that it was 

the calm and deliberate policy adopted by us more than seventy years ago as a continental policy. It 

impressed upon the Prime Minister the importance of submitting the question to impartial 

arbitration. 

“The Prime Minister devotes the greater part of his reply to an endeavor to show that we do not 

understand the significance and scope of the Monroe doctrine, and at any rate says that it is ‘played 

out’, or, as he puts it. ‘The dangers which were apprehended by President Monroe have no relation 

to the state of things in which we live at the present day.’ He further answers our urgent request for 

a peaceful arbitration that it is a controversy with which the United States have no apparent practical 

concern. 

“It will appear to any one reading the Prime Ministers communications that he has overstepped 

the bounds, not only of diplomatic etiquette, but of ordinary propriety, in assuming to dictate to our 

Government what is the meaning of the Monroe doctrine and what we have a right to hold as our 

policy on this hemisphere. That the Monroe doctrine, which, when proclaimed in 1823, was hailed 

with satisfaction and approval by England, is not abandoned by us, should now be quite evident to 

Lord Salisbury, even if he should fail to recognize it as a principle of international law. 

“Lord Salisbury could more profitably employ his time in discovering that boundary lines are not 

the branches of compasses, which can be extended without regard to the rights of a contiguous 

Government, even though that Government be not able to adequately defend itself against forcible 

encroachment. 

“The President has performed a most patriotic service in his clear and forcible statement of our 

American policy. It was due to candor and to the preservation of peaceable relations with the 

nations of the world that they should not be left in doubt.” 


- 159 - 

THE PRESIDENT’S CRITICS 

The President message did not create our vicious financial system. It is well to remember that. 

The evils and the weakness of the system were brought sharply into the public view by his 

utterances—they were even for the time intensified. But they were there before, they were known, 

and they would sooner or later have got us into serious trouble. 

It is complained that the message was inopportune, that the President might easily have deferred 

its issue, that there was surely nothing in the Venezuela boundary situation to call for precipitate 

utterance or action, and that Mr. Cleveland should have strengthened the Treasury before he put on 

253

21 – 23 December 1895 

high airs with Great Britain. Even those who told that the President is right protest that he was 

premature. 

For any critic of the Administration who is not in its confidence to make this protest is to take 

all the risks of speaking in ignorance of the facts. Here is a National policy formulated by President 

Monroe, in consultation with Jefferson, Madison and the younger Adams, accepted and restated 

with emphasis during the Administrations of Polk, Lincoln, Grant, Garfield, Arthur, and Harrison, 

specially applied to Venezuela’s boundary dispute with Great Britain by Secretaries of State Evarts, 

Frelinghuysen, Bayard, Blaine, Gresham, and Olney. It will be granted, perhaps, that such a policy 

must be put in force when the occasion arises or else abandoned altogether. So far as the public 

knows the occasion chosen by the President was the receipt of Lord Salisbury’s letter declining 

arbitration. Do the critics of the President know, or merely assume, that there were no 

circumstances of the case that demanded immediate action? Sometimes the under officers and 

privates hold the General’s dispositions to be senseless and perilous until they come to know his 

reasons. It is well to have some confidence in the General. He usually has superior facilities for 

getting information. 

It seems to us, also, that the young college professors who are so sure that the President is 

wrong would do well to remember that his action was taken only after prolonged consultation with 

gentlemen who are fully their equal in ability and of very much greater experience, and that it is 

sustained by precedence in the declarations and policies of many eminent persons who have filled 

the offices of President and of Secretary of State. The clergy who think the President wrong would 

think any President wrong who took almost any step that involved war as even a remote 

consequence. Ministers of the Gospel are men of peace. It would be a deplorable thing if they were 

not. 

But for that very reason they are probably not the best counselors in foreign affairs. If they were 

always consulted by Presidents and Secretaries of States, our foreign policy would be patterned 

closely on that of James I, who “shunned hostilities with a caution which was proof against the 

insults of his neighbors and the clamors of his subjects.” 


- 160 - 

PEACE TALK IN ENGLAND 

The Britishers No Longer Fear There Will Be a War 

SOME UTTERANCES FROM THE PULPIT 

Prominent English Clergymen Protest Against the Prevalence of a 

War Spirit—Urge Magnanimity and Concession 

LONDON. Dec. 22.—London had a good deal to say to-day, in one way and another, on the 

Venezuelan matter. The general view now is that there is not the slightest danger of war between 

England and the United States. 

The most notable utterances to-day were those from the pulpit. 

Speaking at the City Temple to-day, the Rev. Dr. Joseph Parker said: 

254


Do not trouble yourselves with the thought of war. There will be no war. England and America cannot do 

without each other. War would be suicide. We send to-day messages from our hearts to our fellow-Christians in 

America. We must act in a spirit of magnanimity and concession. We miss Henry Ward Beecher. He could and 

would have spoken the word of reconciliation. I call upon British and American Christians to unite in prayerful 

counsel in the interests of peace. 

Mr. Parker prayed in a similar strain, the congregation giving a hearty “Amen! to his supplication. 

The Rev. Mr. Waller, President or the Wesleyan Conference, preaching at Liverpool to-day, said 

that every lover of his kindred would strive to avert a war which would be unnatural, monstrous, 

and wicked. 

The Archdeacon of London, preaching at Canonbury, said that for the branches of the Anglo- 

Saxon race to plunge into a war for such a cause would seem to be a disaster whose magnitude, 

compared with the slightness of the occasion, removed it from the region of possibility. A give-andtake 

policy, he added, would soon settle the difficulty. 

Canon Newbolt, preaching at St. Paul’s to-day, deplored the fact that the peace and good-will of 

kindred nations had been disturbed in the Christmas season, but he thanked God that the spirit of 

truth and honor animated both. This was the best pledge of a just and amicable settlement. 

The Rev. Hugh Price Hughes, in the course of his sermon at St. James’s Hall, said that the two 

most distressing spectacles for any lover of peace were the Sultan of Turkey and Mr. Cleveland. The 

latter bullied Great Britain and rudely threatened her with war, but, awful as a conflict was to 

contemplate, he hoped that those answerable for the conduct of the nation’s affairs would not allow 

him to dictate where the frontiers of the British Empire ended and began. 

At the Tabernacle, the Rev. Thomas Spurgeon prayed fervently that the Almighty’s hand would 

guide the statesmen of both countries, and that He would endow them with wisdom and patience to 

bring the trouble to a happy issue. The prayer was greeted with fervent Amens. 

The Men’s Sunday Union, which is composed of workers in the east end of London, has 

adopted a resolution sending “a hearty Christmas greeting to their brother nation” as an expression 

of their opinion that a war would be unnatural and un-Christian, and should be forever impossible. 


- 161 - 

SCHOMBURGK LIVED IN AMERICA 

A Botanist Drew the Alleged Venezuelan Boundary Line 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 22—An interesting fact in connection with the famous Schomburgk 

Line which has escaped observation is that the man who provided the British Government with that 

boundary came to this country from Germany when he was twenty-two years old, and after working 

for some time as a clerk in Boston and Philadelphia became a partner in a Richmond (Va.) tobacco 

manufactory in 1828. 

The factory was burned, and Schomburgk drifted to the West Indies, where, after unsuccessful 

ventures, his botanical work attracted the attention of the London Geographical Society, and he 

255

21 – 23 December 1895 

secured means to explore the unknown region of the Orinoco where he traveled from 1823 to 1839, 

and discovered the Victoria Regina lily and numerous other plants. 

This work led the British Government to commission him to suggest a boundary between 

Venezuela and Guiana, and to make further explorations. The line was drawn, and he was knighted 

by the Queen for his services. Schomburgk, until his death in 1865, continued in the British 

Consular Service, but devoted himself chiefly to geographical studies, being a member of the 

principal American and European learned societies. 


- 162 - 

MINISTERS FOR PEACE 

The Venezuelan Question Before the Baptist Conference 

PRAISE FOR PRESIDENT CLEVELAND 

A Resolution Reflecting upon His Action Laid on the Table 

Another to be Discussed Next Week 

The Venezuelan question was brought up at the regular meeting of the Baptist Ministers’ 

Conference, at 149 Fifth Avenue, yesterday, and there was much excitement before it was disposed 

of. 

The sentiment of the meeting was in favor of peace, but a resolution to that effect was defeated, 

because of its preamble, which was regarded as reflecting upon President Cleveland. Peace 

resolutions will be presented at the meeting of the conference next week, and will probably be 

adopted. 

When the meeting was called to order yesterday, the Moderator, the Rev. Dr. J. H. Dudley, said: 

“As we are not politicians, I presume we can take some action in regard to the probable or 

improbable war.” 

The Rev. Dr. B. F. Morse, assistant to the Rev. Dr. R. S. MacArthur of the Calvary Baptist 

Church, said: “As there has been action taken recently looking toward a disruption between America 

and Britain, I believe that we should take some action deprecating any proposal of war.” 

The Rev. S. W. Brinkerhoff, a venerable man, said that the President’s message did not 

contemplate war. 

“It certainly does contemplate war,’ said the Moderator, “and there is a suggestion of blood 

‘bridle deep’.” 

The Rev. George Tompkins then jumped up in an excited manner and said he was an 

Englishman, and had lived in the same house with John Bright. He quoted some of the latter’s 

writings in support of peace and union between the two great English- speaking nations. 

A motion was then made to appoint a committee to prepare a peace resolution. Before the 

motion was voted upon, the Rev. Dr. E. Crowell, a retired minister, said, amid much excitement: 

England has insulted the United States. I am an old man, but I remember very well when France undertook to 

trample on the Monroe doctrine, but she got left. She sent a sprig of royalty to Mexico, but we said to France, “No, 

Sir.” Maximilian died, justly or otherwise, an ignominious death. 

256


I never was an admirer of President Cleveland, but I compliment him and rejoice that he has enough good 

American backbone in him to stand up for American rights. 

When the American commission determines the true boundary line between Venezuela and British Guiana, 

then it will be time to pass such resolutions as are proposed here. [Applause.] 

“This subject, I maintain.” said Dr. Morse, “has no application to the Monroe doctrine.” 

The motion to prepare the resolution opposing war with England was adopted, but it met with 

considerable opposition. Dr. Morse was named as a committee to prepare the resolution. 

Dr. Morse then presented the following: 

Whereas, A war between England and America, with the horrors and suffering it would entail, would be a 

stigma upon Christianity and a travesty upon civilization; and 

Whereas, The question of disagreement made by the President and accepted by Congress is unworthy of the 

thought of a great Republic like the United States, or a great empire like Great Britain; 

Resolved, That we as members of this conference composed of pastors of New-York City and vicinity, do 

protest against any hasty action looking toward disruption in the relations between the United States and England, 

and that we strongly deprecate anything advanced by private citizens or public officials, to the effect that war is the 

only question in dispute. 

Mr. Brinkerhoff opposed the resolution, saying: 

I do not want this to pass, because the President wants peace, not war. He wants arbitration, but Salisbury says 

“No.” If Salisbury refuses arbitration, then it is time to talk war. 

I have a son, and if it comes to defending the rights of my country I’ll give my son to its defense, and I’ll go 

myself it they will take me. [Applause.] I will stand by President Cleveland and my country. 

A motion was then made to lay the resolution on the table. Several of the ministers objected to 

the preamble to the resolution, as being an uncalled-for reflection on the President. 

The resolution was finally laid on the table by a vote of 22 to 12. 

A committee of five was then appointed to present to the meeting of the conference next 

Monday resolutions embodying the views of the conference against war, but which will not be 

offensive to any at the members. . . 


- 163 - 

VERY PEACEFUL TALK THIS! 

England’s “Sober Second Thought” 

Approves the Commission and Is Very Reasonable Indeed 

LONDON, Dec 22.—The Daily News to-morrow, under the caption “Sober Second Thought,” 

will discuss the situation in that light. It will say: 

It would be improper and ungenerous to attribute the change of opinion to the chilling influence of a financial 

panic on a people so self-reliant and courageous as those of the United States. They never would be turned from 

257

21 – 23 December 1895 

any supreme object of patriotic effort by misgivings respecting their own power. No American can have stronger 

belief than we in the potency of the great country and its people. It is because we so strongly believe in the power 

and will of the American people that we rejoice in their rapid change of opinion. 

The paper then proceeds to blame Mr. Cleveland, and says that the sooner his language is 

forgotten the better it will be for all parties, including himself. It then adds: 

The commission will be regarded, not as an international tribunal, but as a form of domestic inquiry, designed 

for the better information of the American people and their rulers. It may be positively useful. Its very appointment 

is in one sense an admission that the State Department believes that the Venezuelan claims are exaggerated, and that 

no further action could wisely be taken until Washington discovered some firmer basis for negotiations than the 

shifty statements of the little military despot at Caracas. 

The News professes to believe there is reason to expect that three Americans of credit and 

standing would propose a very different line of demarkation from that insisted on by Venezuela. 

The Times will say to-morrow: 

Although the reaction may not yet be triumphant, it is satisfactory to find that the Americans, whether they 

dislike us or not, are hesitating to incur the guilt of breaking the peace of the civilized world for such a contemptible 

cause, and in vindication of claims repudiated by all the nations of the Old World. President Cleveland’s manifest 

incapacity to understand the effect of what he was doing when he sent such a warlike message to the Congress, has 

shattered the confidence felt in him as a pillar of sound finance and a mainstay of the public credit. 

The renewal, therefore, of his proposals of currency reform, after he himself has made them impossible, has 

dashed the hopes of his friends and set his opponents to work to turn his errors to account. It is now clear that Mr. 

Cleveland’s financial proposals have no chance at all of passing. 

Deeply as we must regret that the controversy has arisen, we can, at all events, rejoice in the demonstration it 

has afforded of the unity of our national sentiment, especially the attachment of our Canadian fellow-subjects of the 

Crown. Good may come out of the evil if the incident should lead the Canadians to strengthen their organization 

for defense and admonish us at home to strain every nerve to retain that indisputable command of the sea on which 

the empire depends. 


258


- Part 6 - 

24 - 25 December 1895 

259

24 – 25 December 1895 

260


- 164 - 

An Appeal for Arbitration 

LONDON, Dec. 23.—The International Arbitration Society has adopted a resolution recalling 

its own efforts since 1892 to procure arbitration of the Venezuelan dispute and reasserting its 

position, while regretting President Cleveland’s attitude. The resolution adds that, while the society 

does not recognize the right of the United States to decide the question, it hopes that the matter will 

yet be arbitrated. 


- 165 - 

AMERICA NOT THE AGGRESSOR 

England Raised the Quarrel and Persists In Keeping It Alive 

From The Chicago Tribune, (Rep.) 

Two courses were open for the President when this insulting reply of Lord Salisbury’s was 

received. He could have laid it before Congress and recommended that the subject be allowed to 

drop; that the Monroe doctrine, not being acceptable to England, be abandoned, and that Venezuela 

be left to her fate. 

But President Cleveland did not do that. He did not believe the people would give up the 

Monroe doctrine because it was not recognized by England. So he adopted the other course. He 

said: “Since England will not arbitrate, and will not appear before an impartial tribunal, to show 

exactly what her rights are, let us do the investigating. We will find out how much of the territory in 

dispute really belongs to Venezuela.” 

It was not necessary to do that as long as there was hope that England and Venezuela would 

settle the matter peacefully. But when England refused to arbitrate, then before this country went 

further it be-came necessary to see just how far Venezuela was being robbed. 

No American citizen should protest against that moderate, conservative course. There have been 

protests, but they come from persons certainly not American in sentiment, and generally not 

Americans by nationality. If England can regulate boundaries to suit herself in South America and 

steal territory there, what is to hinder her trumping up other pretexts and regulating boundaries to 

suit herself in North America? She is doing it now in Alaska at the expense of the United States. 

It is not aggression on the part of the United States when it resists the attempted aggressions of 

England on other American countries. It is not aggression on the part of the United States to defend 

the Monroe doctrine enunciated in 1823 for the protection of this continent against European 

aggressions. It was not a part of international law then, but Americans are resolved that it shall be, 

even if it comes to a fight. 

The quarrel is not one which the United States has forced on England, but which England is 

forcing on this country and on all America. England is seeking to annex American territory, 

261

24 – 25 December 1895 

repudiates the Monroe doctrine and says she has as much to say about affairs on this side of the 

ocean as Americans have. Eng land is the quarrelsome one, not the United States. 


- 166 - 

Canada in Case of War 

From The Montreal Gazette (Quebec), Dec. 21 

The Cleveland Venezuela message has led in Canada to considerable discussion as to what would 

be likely to follow in case the United States carried its contentions to the length of fighting for them. 

All the authorities agree that Canadians would come in for a good share of the hard knocks, and all 

seem to be perfectly satisfied that such a state of affairs would be regular, and be regarded as part of 

the price to be paid for membership in the empire, the proportions of which the United States 

Government has several times tried to curtail. If there is not as much federation of government in 

the empire as there might be there is plenty of federation of sentiment. 


- 167- 

GOOD FEELING IN ENGLAND 

No Fear There Now that There Will Be War with This Country 

A PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT EXPECTED 

Impression Prevails that the Political Strain Between England 

and America is Diminishing 

LIBERALS WATCHING DEVELOPMENTS 

While Not Dissenting from Salisbury’s Position, They Hope to 

Force Him to at Conciliatory Policy 

By Commercial Cable from Our Own Correspondent 

LONDON, Dec. 23.—Everything to-night relating to the Venezuelan question is colored by the 

impression prevailing here that the political strain between England and the United States is 

diminishing sensibly. 

Such remaining signs of demoralization as the security market showed in the middle of the day 

were due to the offerings of investors whom last week’s scare seemed just to have reached, and to 

effects of Saturday’s weakness of American securities in Vienna. 

Elsewhere on the Continent there was a rally Saturday, which came on speculative buying. 

262


It is believed, if no fresh discouragement shall come from New-York bears, there will be a more 

decided rally in Americans after Christmas. 

Great attention has been given to-day to the pulpit utterances of yesterday in both countries, and 

the opinion that the situation has improved is based principally on them. 

Liberal politicians are watching developments with the closest scrutiny; but no disposition is 

shown by them yet to dissent from Salisbury’s position, though they privately confess to the hope 

that America may offer a compromise which they can insist on making the Salisbury Government 

accept. 

There are no signs yet of any official tendency on the Continent to fish in the troubled 

Venezuelan waters, though papers that are coming in now show that the tone of Continental 

comment, while against the Monroe doctrine, has been much more hostile to England than 

summaries telegraphed here have represented it to be. 

The holiday season will begin to-morrow, and not even Venezuela will avail to disturb the 

national lethargy here till the close of the week. 

H. F. 


- 168 - 

England Divided; America United 

From The Utica Observer, (Dem.) 

It is apparent that Lord Salisbury’s blunt refusa1 to submit the matter in dispute with Venezuela 

to arbitration is not likely to be sustained in England. The London Times supports Salisbury staunchly, 

but the consciousness of right does not command for him the general support of the press. It is in 

striking contrast with the practical unanimity with which the American press sustains the President. 


- 169 - 

England Cannot Afford War 

From The Fitchburg Mail (Mass.), (Rep.) 

As a leading power upon this continent the United States ought, for its own interest, to 

determine which party is right in this dispute over boundary lines. Any encroachment by European 

powers beyond their just rights is likely to affect adversely, sooner or later, our own National 

interests. Hence, we are justified in calling a halt at the beginning, whenever there is any danger of 

one of the smaller American nations being imposed upon by unjust claims of a more powerful 

263

24 – 25 December 1895 

nation. The stand taken by our National Administration at Washington is a very moderate one, and 

asks only that the matter at issue be taken up by an impartial tribunal and decided upon its merits. 

This is all that the United States is asking of England, and she cannot refuse in the end to accede to 

this very reasonab1e request. The longer she delays the fewer sympathizers she will have. War is out 

of the question. With her diverse, world-wide interests, England cannot afford to go to war with a 

powerful nation like the United States, and she is not likely to do so when once the reasonable 

attitude of this country has been realized. 


- 170 - 

His Position Impregnable 

From The Kansas City Times, (Ind. Dem.) 

The House has done its duty with admirable sense and temper in promptly and unanimously 

passing the bill suggested by the President providing for a commission to examine into the question 

of the proper boundary line between Venezuela and British Guiana. This step is eminently proper 

and necessary. 

President Cleveland’s stand is impregnably taken. The country has perfect confidence in 

President Cleveland’s wisdom and non-partisanship, and, as Congressman Hitt said in the House, in 

urging the passage of his bill, “in such a. time the Executive is hampered by every criticism that 

comes from our own country. The success of our country depends upon our maintaining a united 

front.” Would that both parties had more men like him. 


- 171 - 

COMMISSION NOT CHOSEN 

The President Has Not Selected His Representatives 

MR. HARRISON AN IMPOSSIBILITY 

Every Man Who Goes to the White House Slated by the Reporters 

for an Appointment—War Officer May Be Named 

WASHINGTON. Dec. 23.—Men of prominence go to the White House now at imminent rink 

of immediate appointment on the Venezuelan commission. 

Chief Justice Fuller called at the Executive Mansion to-day, and he has straightway been named 

as one of the commission—not by the President, for Mr. Cleveland had not this afternoon so much 

as fixed his mind upon one member of that body. He has not yet decided whether the commission 

shall be made up of three or five members. The nominations of ex-Senator Edmunds, ex-Minister 

264


Phelps, and ex-Minister Andrew D. White were public nominations, and none of those gentlemen 

has been consulted on the subject. 

A Senator, who referred jocularly to the excellence of the public nominations to the commission, 

said that the newspapers had misunderstood the intention of the Senate, which was not to abandon 

the privilege of advising and consenting to the appointments in order that they might be made by 

eager newspapermen, but that the President might choose his own men to the number he thought 

fit, without concern as to the manner of their reception by the Senate when they had been named. 

The Administration will be in no haste about the Venezuelan question. It has been under 

consideration now no long that it was not seriously expected that it would be disposed of in one 

week after the President had indicated the position the United States ought to occupy in the matter. 

The army and navy men have about concluded that speculation about what we could do in case 

of war does not make a war, and have settled down calmly to the discharge of their usual duties, 

which are more useful than bellicose. 

Ex-President Harrison is reported from Indianapolis as saying that the report of an offer to him 

of the Presidency of the Venezuelan commission was purely imaginative, and that no offer whatever 

had been made to him. 

Senator Turpie of Indiana said that there was no truth in the report that he and others of the 

Indiana delegation had been requested to transmit to ex-President Harrison Mr. Cleveland’s desire 

to appoint him as a member of the Venezuelan commission. Mr. Turpie said he never heard of such 

a thing, and did not expect to hear from the President on the subject. Mr. Voorhees corroborated 

what his colleague said, and added that if Mr. Cleveland wished Mr. Harrison to serve on that 

commission, the President would doubtless do as he had in other matters, and communicate with 

the person concerned directly. 

A rumor has gained currency that the commission will consist of one Democrat, one Republican 

and a distinguished military or naval officer. Lieut. Gen. Schofield and Rear Admiral Walker have 

been mentioned in connection with this rumor, but Admiral Walker could not well serve if a salary 

were attached to the appointment, in view of the recent law of Congress, which prevents officers of 

the Government from drawing two Federal salaries synchronously. This provision would not debar 

Gen. Schofield, as it expressly exempts retired officers. Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan, who 

have also been mentioned as possible members of the commission, would likewise come within the 

limits of the law. 


- 172 - 

Must Show that We Mean Business 

From The Chicago Journal and Press, (Rep.) 

What has become of the truculent war spirit that has marked every step of the stormy career of 

our own John M. Palmer? In a special dispatch to this paper the venerable Senator is quoted way 

down below zero on the Venezuelan question. He says that the country in dispute was forsaken by 

265

24 – 25 December 1895 

God from the foundation of the world, and that it is not worth the life of a single American citizen. 

He adds a protest against a protectorate on our part, but says: “We may insist that right shall be 

done that weak republic.” 

And just here is the weak part of the Senator’s argument, and in those of all the pretended 

upholders of the Monroe doctrine who are in a panic over the dim prospect of war. There is only 

one way of insisting that right shall be done Venezuela, and that is by showing England that we 

mean business. It has come to that delicate point in the negotiations where it is put up or shut up. 

There will never be a better time for defining the Monroe doctrine so that its meaning cannot be 

misunderstood. 


- 173 - 

INDORSE THE PRESIDENT’S ACTION 

Five Republican Aldermen Vote Against Mr. Oakley’s Resolution 

The Board of Aldermen indorsed the action of President Cleveland in the Venezuelan matter 

yesterday, but not before a handful of Republican members had put themselves on record against it. 

Alderman Oakley brought up the matter by introducing the following resolution on behalf or the 

Tammany members: 

Whereas, Circumstances have arisen which involve the right and justice of one of the recognized principles of 

this Government; and 

Whereas, the Hon. Grover Cleveland, President of the United States, realizing the importance of maintaining 

the autonomy or the American republics, has, in defense of this principle, upheld the dignity and honor of the 

United States; therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the Board of Aldermen of the city of New-York heartily indorse his act. 

Alderman Oakley asked that the board agree to his resolution. Alderman Olcott, the Republican 

leader, opposed the resolution. He said he did not believe that the Monroe doctrine applied to 

Venezuela in this case, and that in his opinion the President had made a grievous mistake. 

Mr. Olcott argued that the question was simply one of territorial boundary, involving a question 

of fact yet to be determined. His opinion was that the President and Congress had erred in being so 

precipitate. Mr. Olcott moved to lay the resolution on the table. This was seconded by Mr. Ware, 

(Rep.) 

“This resolution,” said Mr. Oakley, “was made brief in order that it could be seen that there is no 

politics or no jingoism in it. I do not propose at this time to enter into a controversy with Mr. Olcott 

as to the scope of the Monroe doctrine, but I do maintain, however, that the President’s action is 

American and patriotic, and should be indorsed by this board. It has been approved by the 

Republican Congress, and why should Republicans oppose it here now. I hope that this motion to 

table will not prevail.” 

The motion to table was then lost by a vote of 16 to 11, all Democrats voting against it. 

266


Mr. Olcott said that the people who were supporting Mr. Cleveland were doing so not because 

they loved Cleveland more, but England less. He wondered whether Mr. Cleveland would have 

taken the same stand had the country been other than England. 

Alderman Goodman, (Rep.,) who had voted with Mr. Olcott to table the resolution, said that as 

the Congress of the United States had indorsed the course of the President there was no reason why 

the Board of Aldermen should not do so. Alderman Ware, who had seconded the resolution to 

table, was excused from voting. . 

Mr. Oakley’s resolution was finally adopted by a vote of 20 to 5. The five Aldermen who voted 

against it are Republicans. They are Olcott, Randall, Parker, Robinson, and School. 


- 174 - 

MEETING LACKED “PEACE” 

Called to Protest Against President’s Venezuelan Message 

HALL CLEARED TO AVOID A RIOT 

Majority Cheered the Chief Executive and Was In Favor of Upholding Action of Congress 

CRIES OF TREASON; VOLLEYS OF HISSES 

These Were Directed Against Speakers Such as Henry George and Charles Fred Adams 

The Single Tax League’s so-called “peace” demonstration last night at Cooper Union was worse 

than a fiasco; it was almost a riot. Ostensibly called calmly to discuss and protest against President 

Cleveland’s Venezuelan message, the denunciations of the Government by the speakers became 

more and more violent as the evening proceeded, until finally they reached a climax in the hotheaded 

utterances of Charles Fred Adams, who, losing control of himself, piled one epithet on 

another in characterizing the President, the Congress and the Monroe doctrine. His speech 

provoked loud cries of “Traitor!” “Treason!” in all parts of the hall. 

The audience, three-fourths of which were vociferously in favor of President Cleveland’s 

position, at the last became so worked up that it needed only the action of the Chairman in choking 

off a resolution supporting the Administration to produce a general movement toward the stage. 

The lights were hastily turned out. Fifty excited Americans jumped on the stage and surrounded 

Chairman Crosby and Henry George. 

The police cleared the hail. Two hustled out Mr. Crosby. Had it not been for their prompt action 

on the stage and all over the great subterranean chamber, there is no telling what might have 

happened. 

The following resolution, offered by Chauncey L Dutton, and carried by a mighty yell, as the 

lights began to go out, expressed the real and overwhelming sentiment of the mass meeting. 

Resolved, That we, the people of New-York City, hereby declare it to be our profound conviction that the 

Monroe doctrine is the only guarantee of permanent peace on this continent and to our Nation. 

Resolved, That we thank our President and Congress for their unanimous support of the Monroe doctrine. 

Resolved, That we pledge our lives, our fortune, and our sacred honor in support or such measures as the 

Congress shall adopt to maintain the Monroe doctrine in its broadest sense against any and all attacks. 

267

24 – 25 December 1895 

If Mr. Crosby and Henry George, and the Single Tax leaders had expected to fill Cooper Union 

last evening with persons who were in opposition to the application of the Monroe doctrine, or who 

would listen silently to denunciation of President Cleveland, they made the worst calculation of their 

lives. The hall was at first full to overflowing, but it was evident at the outset that there were three 

distinct elements in the evidence. First, there were the Single Taxers, who were angry with the 

Government, and they composed, certainly, not over one-third of the crowd. Second, there were the 

Americans, who were stoutly in sympathy with Congress and the Administration. They were at all 

times greatly in the majority. Then, also, there were those who had come mainly out of curiosity to 

hear speeches from such men as Henry George and the Rev. Lyman Abbott of Plymouth Church. 

Among those on the stage were the Rev. Dr. Abbott, Horace White, Henry George and Mrs. 

George, Louis F. Post and Mrs. Post, Ernest Howard Crosby, Charles Fred Adams, Edward Lawson 

Purdy, ex-Assemblyman Edgar L. Ryder, Byron Holt, the Rev. Dr. J. H. Rylance of St. Mark’s 

Protestant Episcopal Church, August Lewis, the Rev. Mr. Bliss, a Christian Socialist Minister of 

Boston, and Robert Baker, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the National Single Tax 

League. 

Conspicuous in the audience was George Francis Train. He was armed with a large pair of field 

glasses, and he wore a big bunch of roses on the lapel of his coat. 

“Where Is the American flag?” called out a man in the audience, as Henry George came on the 

platform. It was nowhere to be seen. Nowhere on the platform was there a flag or a sign of a 

National emblem of any kind. 

The temper of the meeting was shown at the very beginning, in the short speech made by E. L. 

Purdy, in introducing ex- Assemblyman E. H. Crosby as the Chairman. 

When Mr. Purdy, in referring to President Cleveland’s message, called it “an unfortunate 

utterance,” there was a storm of hisses. Mr. Purdy appeared to be astonished. “This meeting,” be 

said, reprovingly, “was not called for unruly persons.” There was an outburst of hisses, mingled with 

slight handclapping. 

Chairman Crosby did not improve the temper of the audience by his remarks. He characterized 

the war talk in and out of Congress as “an epidemic of froth and hysteria.” He was hissed. 

The Chairman denounced the Monroe doctrine. “It is like a European doctrine with which I 

became acquainted when I was In Egypt,” he said. “The Monroe doctrine means that we Americans 

don’t allow anybody to steal but us.” His voice was drowned in a chorus of hisses and hoots. 

“The Monroe doctrine,” cried the Chairman, seeking to make himself heard above the storm, 

“did not prevent us from taking Texas.” 

“Yes, and we’ll take Mexico next,” came a loud cry from the audience. 

“Am I telling you the truth or not?” shouted Mr. Crosby, red in the face, shaking his finger at his 

hearers. 

“No! No!” yelled a hundred voices. 

“Yes! Yes!” came fainter cries. 

An elderly man of respectable appearance arose in the audience to ask a question. He was forced 

down by the police, who threatened to eject him. 

“The beam in our own eye,” continued the Chairman, “prevents from saying that England shall 

not steal. We –” ; the rest was drowned out by hisses. 

“The Venezuelan controversy,” said Mr. Crosby, “is merely an ignoble controversy of 

speculators over gold mines.” 

“Sit down! Sit down!” came from all parts of the building. 

268


The Chairman sought to soothe the now excited audience by dwelling on the near approach of 

Christmas and the good feeling that should everywhere prevail. 

“No religion; leave that to the ministers!” was hurled at the platform by several voices in unison. 

The Chairman referred to Gen. Miles, and his suggestion to spend $80,000,000 in defenses. This 

brought forth a round of cheers. 

“Let us take our places with the heavenly hosts to bring about peace and good will to all men,” 

said Mr. Crosby, in conclusion. 

“Amen!” was shouted at him in derisive voices. 

Mr. Purdy read a telegram from the Rev. Dr. R. S. Storrs of Brooklyn, and a letter from Bishop 

H. C. Potter, expressing sympathy with the purpose of the callers of the meeting. They were 

received in silence. 

The Rev. Dr. Lyman Abbott was the first speaker. There was some disposition on the part of the 

audience to express the prevailing sentiment in the first part of the reverend doctor’s speech, but his 

temperate language and kind and gentle manners, and the evident universal respect in which he was 

held, soon prevented any further interruptions. 

Dr. Abbott did not indulge in any denunciations of President Cleveland or Congress or the 

Monroe doctrine. He said there was no danger that Venezuela could ever menace the United States 

by being made the basis of British military operations. He cited the fact that Canada, a British 

dependency, was much closer than Venezuela. He depreciated the character of the Venezuelans, said 

they had never had a staple government in the last fifty years, whereas British Guiana had always had 

a “staple, reputable, and honorable government.” “No man,” he said, “will think the interests of 

humanity seriously imperiled if Venezuela loses some of her territory to British Guiana.” 

There were some hisses at this point. 

I am glad to hear these hisses,” said Dr. Abbott, smilingly. “Now I have some one to argue 

with.” 

During the rest of his speech he was listened to quietly, and when near the close he stopped, 

smiled, and said: “Well, I seem to have converted all of you.” 

Dr. Abbott said it was the workingmen’s hearts that would be ploughed by bullets in case of war. 

A foundry, he said, was more glorious than an armory. As he closed, a man shouted: 

“Down with bloody England, the robber of the world!” 

A fat man in the second row from the platform snatched his spectacles from his face, turned 

around, and cried, “You shut your mouth!” 

Henry George was greeted with cheers, but he quickly chilled the cheers into an almost 

continuous hurricane of hisses. Ho did not refer to the single tax idea, but confined himself to an 

arraignment of the President and Congress. 

“The thing of things I have been most afraid of,” he said, “was this war cry. You and I know the 

last trump of the ruling classes has always been to get up a war.” 

He intimated that the ultimate use of the army and navy raised in a war in the United States 

would be to coerce labor by capital. 

“What is this Venezuelan question?” he asked. “Is it the boundary line between British Guiana 

and – . . .” 

“Honor!” cried dozens of voices. 

“How does the King come?” asked Mr. George. “Is it always by enlisting the prejudices of the 

people? Let England go ahead.” 

“No! No!” were the cries. 

269

24 – 25 December 1895 

“Let England go ahead,” repeated Mr. George. 

There was a brief tumult of angrily protesting voices. 

“You’re wrong there,” shouted Mr. George. 

“We’re right,” was the answering yell. 

The Chairman tried to pacify the audience, but did not succeed. 

After the excitement had subsided, Mr. George said: “Is it our business to follow England all 

around the world undoing her wrong doing?” 

“It is in America,” cried a dozen. 

“America for Americans!” went up the cry, followed by cheers. 

“The people who got up this war scare are playing at polities,” shouted Mr. George, now 

thoroughly exasperated, stamping his foot on the platform. 

“This is treason,” said a hoarse voice. 

Instantly some one proposed “Three cheers for Grover Cleveland!” The cheers came from 

hundreds of throats. 

Three cheers were next given for Secretary Olney. There were also some hisses. 

Mr. George appeared to lose his bearings for a moment. He shook his finger at the audience. 

“Were those cheers for Mr. Cleveland I heard a little while ago?” he asked. 

“Yes,” was the mighty chorus. 

“I cheered for Grover Cleveland once,” said Mr. George. 

“You’ll do it again.” 

“Again?” said Mr. George. 

“Yes, again,” came the vociferous answer. 

“No, never,” shouted the speaker. 

He was hissed. 

“War,” said Mr. George, “always means the subjection of the many by the few.” 

“How about the American Revolution?” asked a listener. 

Mr. George stopped. He was angry clear through. So was most of the audience. Hoots and hisses 

filled in the interval before he made answer which was, in effect, that Benjamin Franklin had 

publicly doubted the advisability of the Revolutionary war. 

“This war cry,” said Mr. George, in closing, “is all for the purpose of carrying a Presidential 

election.” 

Hisses against the speaker and cries of “No!” were mingled with cheers for the President. 

The Rev. Mr. Bliss spoke for fifteen minutes on Christian Socialism. He was temperate, and he 

gave the audience a breathing spell. 

Franklin Pierce, grandson of President Pierce, made a fiery speech, which served to arouse the 

audience once more into emphatic signs of anger and resentment. 

A diversion was furnished by Antonia Molina, an excited Cuban. He had not been asked to 

speak, but he rushed to the front of the stage, and shouted: “Why not help the Cubans?” 

Chairman Crosby, Henry George, and Mr. Purdy vainly sought to pull back Mr. Molina into a 

seat. This only made his excitement more vehement, and when finally Mr. Crosby advised that he be 

allowed to speak, he was not able to talk coherently, but could only gesticulate. 

A letter of sympathy with the object of the callers of the meeting was read from the Rev. N. 

Herber Newton. 

Charles Fred Adams was the last speaker. His talk was a violent harangue against President 

Cleveland, Congress and the Monroe doctrine. At first the audience, impressed perhaps by his 

270


prodigious gestures and his incessant hopping about, were inclined to make fun. For instance, when 

he said he was descended from “Sam” Adams, whom everybody has heard about, there were cries of 

“three cheers for Sam Adams,” which were given. But when he began to accuse the President and 

Congress of treason, and it was seen he was very much in earnest, he was interrupted every minute 

by cries of “treason,” “traitor,” “scoundrel.” Men jumped up all over the ball and denounced him. 

The greatest tumult came when Mr. Adams said: “If the Monroe doctrine gives ground for the 

present attitude of the President and Congress, then I say (here he uplifted his arm) d– President 

Monroe and his doctrine.” 

Then there was, indeed, a great hubbub. 

“Put him out!” “Sit down!” “Traitor!” “Treason!” came from every part of the hall. The police 

rushed into the aisles to anticipate a movement of the angry people toward the stage. 

The audience gave three cheers for the Monroe doctrine. 

As Mr. Adams retired, amid hisses, there were calls for George Francis Train. He refused to 

respond. 

Chairman Crosby, through the Secretary, put a motion to appoint the speakers a committee to 

get the widest possible expression of opinion against President Cleveland. 

Before the motion could be put Shauncey M. Dutton sprang up from the first row of seats, and, 

waving a paper, he cried: “Mr. Chairman. I desire to otter a resolution that will express the sense of 

this meeting.” 

Several men who had been prowling round the rear of the platform, on the watch for such a 

proceeding, ran clown the steps into the hole, crying, “Put him out!” The audience was now 

altogether on its feet, some shouting, some cheering. There was a general movement toward the 

platform. Trouble seemed imminent. The police grabbed Mr. Dutton and rushed him into the anteroom. 

The Chairman put his own resolution. It was lost by a tremendous majority. 

“The meeting is adjourned,” said the Chairman. 

Instantly all but the lights on the stage was extinguished, and the police began to clear the hall. 

Fifty men jumped on the platform, and hard words were inter-changed, and fists were thrust under 

the noses of Henry George, Mr. Crosby, Robert Barker, Mr. Adams, and others identified with the 

meeting. Half a dozen police cleared the stage. 

Hostilities were renewed on the sidewalk, but a squad of police drove everybody away. The 

people separated hissing, shouting, and cheering. 



- 175 - 

Lord Salisbury, the Mischief Maker 

One may approve of President Cleveland’s message without being a jingo. Nor, in disagreeing 

with it, does he need to be a jingo. Jingoes are men who so fiercely pant for war, whose patriotism is 

so thoroughly emotional, that they are all aflame on the slightest provocation. The fire in their hearts 

271

24 – 25 December 1895 

consumes whatever little judgment they may have in their heads. Jingoes are those who so intensely 

admire their own opinions, whose dislike of dissent is so bitter, that they sling the mud of nasty 

insinuation against every man who does not meekly accept their conclusions. Their gall and venom 

destroy what little of charity may lurk in the obscure recesses of what they call their hearts. 

The jingoes are now engaged in the congenial occupation of misrepresenting the President’s 

motives, because as a patriotic ruler he has dared in the face of a great crisis to uphold our traditions, 

that the Monroe doctrine means that while the powers of Europe, the world’s land thieves, may, so 

far as we are concerned, steal and carve up for themselves Africa, Asia, and the islands of foreign 

seas, may use their hypocritical pretense of sympathy for suffering Armenians as a pretext for 

dividing the Sultan’s dominions, they shall when casting their greedy eyes upon and turning their 

predatory footsteps to the American continent be met by the fiat of the United States: Thus far and 

no further. “It is to the interest of this Nation, as the original and foremost champion of republican 

forms of government, to defend all American republics in their rights, but not in their wrongs.” By 

that principle we have lived, for that principle we will fight. 

We have seen English troops occupying the port of Corinto in order to exact just retribution for 

a wrong committed by an American republic, and we have properly remained silent. We have seen 

Spanish troops trying to quell a rebellion in an island lying almost within our own coast line, and 

although it was to our interests to have that rebellion succeed, we have honorably refrained from 

giving it the succor which would have insured success. But whet we behold the English Government 

charged with a fraudulent attempt to crowd a weak American republic out of territory it has long 

claimed, our President speaks in no uncertain tones: Thus far and no further, until we examine into 

the facts, to the end that if the weaker nation is in the right we may defend it, and if in the wrong, 

we may leave it to shift for itself. 

With an amusing obtuseness—or is it by intentional misrepresentation?—the jingoes and the 

slingoes have missed the point of the controversy. It was that English jingo, Lord Salisbury, not Mr. 

Cleveland, who shot “the bolt from the blue” By a special letter, so written that his position might 

have the greater emphasis from standing by itself, thus brought out in bold relief, which it would not 

be if hidden away in another document, he presented to our astonished gaze in a most cynical, 

contemptuous way the alternative of abandoning the Monroe doctrine or undergoing England’s illwill. 

He had the jaunty arrogance to notify Mr. Cleveland directly that while England had once 

approved the Monroe doctrine, she now withdrew that approval. Times had changed; it had become 

obsolete; she would no longer recognize it. It was he, not in an address to his own country, but in a 

message to our Government, who in the silken language of a wily diplomacy, tendered us the issue 

of war. He, this English jingo, virtually said to be a ruler who in the Hawaiian difficulty as well as in 

those above mentioned, had shown his love of justice and of peace: If you wish to maintain your 

vaunted Monroe doctrine you must fight. 

Now, it may well be a fair question for argument whether the Monroe doctrine has become 

obsolete, or whether it is for all time. But I fancy we will not give it up until that matter has been 

fairly argued among us. Certainly we will not tamely surrender upon England’s dictation. When it 

was put forth, an English Minister, Canning, claimed to have begot it. If after seventy years, we now 

withdraw it, another English Minister will boast that he strangled it! 

President Cleveland, instead of answering this haughty defiance, quietly transmits it to Congress, 

with a message, which is temperate in tone, dignified n manner, guarded in matter, entirely impartial, 

and asks Congress to take measures to ascertain the facts out of which the dispute between the 

strong and the weak nation has arisen, so that we may see what final stand an enlightened self- 

272


interest requires us to take. England responds as the bully always does, by saying we are doing the 

pushing! 

There is not one word in the message from first to last, which takes sides with Venezuela against 

England, nothing which prejudges the merits of their dispute. Lord Salisbury assails the Monroe 

doctrine and Mr. Cleveland declines to abandon it. It were well, after the hubbub of last week, if the 

jingoes and the slingoes would read that message again. It might quiet their heated souls. 

JOHN BROOKS LEAVITT 

New-York, Forefathers’ Day, Dee. 22. 1895 


- 176 - 

LORD SALISBURY ASSENTS TO THE MONROE DOCTRINE 

The London News, on “sober second thought,” concludes that the American Venezuela 

commission “may be positively useful” in supplying us better information about the Venezuela 

boundary. 

Quite likely. It is to be appointed for that purpose. But what will be the course of her Majesty’s 

Ministers if the commission shall report, on evidence submitted, that the territory in dispute is 

wholly or in large part Venezuela’s? 

We do not think they will venture to disregard the finding. In his letter in reply to Secretary 

Olney’s dispatch of July 20, Lord Salisbury wrote: 

“Her Majesty’s Government . . . fully concur with the view which President Monroe apparently 

entertained, that any disturbance of the existing territorial distribution in that hemisphere by any 

fresh acquisitions on the part of any European State would be a highly inexpedient change.” 

That is an admission of great importance. It will long be remembered that an English Prime 

Minister has declared that a violation of the Monroe doctrine by a European State would be “highly 

inexpedient.” 

We think so, too. 


- 177 - 

No War Expected—or Feared 

From The Raleigh News and Observer (N.C.) (Dem.) 

Serious as is the situation, we do not believe these two great peoples, common in origin, 

language, laws, and customs—foremost in the march of civilization and mightiest of all nations— 

273

24 – 25 December 1895 

will in the broad light of the nineteenth century, fight over a beggarly plot of land in which, it has 

been said, there is not room enough to bury the slain. 

The masses of the people do not want war, and most reluctantly will support a war waged over 

interests so remote from our own. They will support their Government, but they will demand that it 

proceed slowly, and make ever sacrifice for peace consistent with an enlightened sense of national 

dignity. 

But let it be understood, once for all, that this Government has firmly set up the time-honored 

contention that the extension of European sovereignty in the two Americas cannot be tolerated by 

the United States, and that, therefore, claims to territory in this hemisphere, advanced by any 

European nation, which are disputed, must be submitted to arbitration. If Great Britain continues to 

scoff at this doctrine and still firmly refuses to submit her claims to arbitration, then there will 

undoubtedly be war. 


- 178 - 

No Occasion for War 

From The Sioux City Tribune, (Iowa), (Dem.) 

The world has come to accept the refusal to arbitrate as evidence that the nation so refusing is in 

the wrong, and hence, should Great Britain conclude to defy the United States and undertake 

arbitrarily to establish a new boundary line between Guiana and Venezuela, she would outrage the 

sense of justice of every nation. There will be no war, because there is no occasion for war. 


- 179 - 

NO SURRENDER OF PRINCIPLE 

The President’s Position Will Be Courageously Sustained 

From The Salt Lake City Herald (Dem.) 

The New-York World declares the message to be a blunder because it is not sustained by 

international law; because it puts the United States in a false position; because its assumption is 

absurd. That tone might do for the English press, but it by no means reflects the spirit of the 

American people, nor is it justified by anything that appears either in the message of the Chief 

Executive or the correspondence of Secretary Olney. 

This country is confronted with the question as to whether it will maintain or surrender the 

Monroe doctrine—a doctrine which is supposed to have shaped the foreign policy of our 

Government for seventy years of our National life. To yield to the bluster of England in this 

controversy means to surrender the Monroe doctrine, and that the people of America are not 

274


prepared to do. They would repudiate the Administration that would recommend it; and that man or 

paper that counsels it the people will set down as more English than American. 

We have asked for nothing but what is right, we will submit to nothing wrong, is the spirit of 

President Cleveland’s message to Congress on the subject of the Venezuelan controversy, and the 

people of the United States, without regard to party affiliation, will sustain the President in the stand 

he has taken. 

It has only demanded that the boundary-line dispute be submitted to arbitration, a proposition 

which England rejects. Very well, then the United States Government, if it follows the courageous 

recommendations of President Cleveland—and we are of opinion it will—will take steps to ascertain 

for itself where the boundary line should run. It may be that the commission of examination asked 

for by the President would find that all the territory claimed by England rightfully belongs to her; if 

so it would be for England to enforce her rights. But if the commission should find that England is 

seeking to extend her frontiers and thus enlarge her possessions in America in violation of the 

Monroe doctrine, the duty of the United States would be perfectly clear—it would be to maintain 

the Monroe doctrine. 


- 180 - 

No Politics in This Controversy 

From The Butte Inter-Mountain (Mon.) (Rep.) 

There is no politics in this controversy between this country and Great Britain over the 

Venezuela imbroglio. It is a matter in which all true Americans, regardless of political affiliations, 

stand shoulder to shoulder in defense of their country’s rights, their country’s integrity, and their 

country’s honor. It is a matter in which every American forgets or ignores politics and remembers 

only that he is an American, not only in name but in all the name implies. The President’s message 

appeals directly to the sympathies, the sense of justice, and the patriotism of the whole American 

people. It is couched in unmistakably direct and firm, yet dignified, language. It is not possible for 

Great Britain to misunderstand or misinterpret its meaning. The message is in the nature of an 

ultimatum from this Government. It emphasizes the determination of the Administration to adhere 

to the principle embodied in the Monroe doctrine. It is hardly with the range of possibilities that 

Great Britain will try conclusions with this country at the point of the sword over this matter. She 

has too much at stake in Ireland and Canada, to enter into war with the United States. Great Britain 

can afford to make a stalwart bluff; this Government cannot afford to set aside the Monroe 

doctrine. It is vital to its existence. For once Cleveland is right. Congress is all right, and the 

American people are always eminently right. For these reasons and others given we cannot believe a 

war with Great Britain is possible. 


275

24 – 25 December 1895 

- 181 - 

Opposition to the United States in the United States 

From The Brooklyn Eagle of Yesterday 

For eighty years England has refused to Venezuela an arbitration of the boundary dispute 

between them. For nearly half that time England has refused such arbitration, on the suggestion of 

the United States. In that time the boundary claim, or encroachment of Great Britain upon 

Venezuela, has advanced from a strip about the size of Rhode Island, to a section as large as five of 

the six New-England States. If this has been right, arbitration would show it. If it has been wrong, 

arbitration would show that. A refusal of arbitration creates the presumption that recourse to 

arbitration would not show the rightfulness of progressive encroachment. 

Arbitration refused, the facts still remain to be ascertained. If there is any other way to ascertain 

them than by investigation that other way has not been disclosed. The President has asked for 

authority to order such an investigation. Every member of the House at Representatives and every 

member of the United States Senate has voted for a bill appropriating $100,000 for the expenses of 

such an investigation by men to be appointed by the President. The appointment of these men is 

under consideration. This action is the action of the Government, if any action in this world ever 

was. It must be held to be the action of the people, and the unanimous action of the people, for they 

ad through their representatives, and their representatives have unanimously taken this action. 

Investigation has been ordered by law. Opposition to it is opposition to law. It has been ordered by 

the law of the United States. Opposition to it is opposition to the United States. In our civil strife 

that was called disloyalty. Possibly the definition was incorrect. If, however, the definition was true 

then, it has not become false now, because now the men who practice it were then the men who 

stigmatized it. 


- 182 - 

STAND BY THE PRESIDENT 

This Is the Imperative Duty Which Confronts the American People 

From The Boston Journal, (Rep.) 

The Boston Stock Exchange, on consideration, has determined to proceed deliberately, and to 

take no action calculated to embarrass the President, and the meeting which a few members of the 

New-York Chamber of Commerce desired to call to obstruct his course has been indefinitely 

abandoned. After the first flurry, it is being recognized on all hands that it is the imperative duty of 

the entire Nation to stand by the President and Congress. That is the wisest and safest policy so far 

as the country’s great financial interests are concerned, and it is the wisest and safest policy, too, as 

regards the present controversy with Great Britain. Anything which is calculated to weaken our own 

276


Government in this case inevitably tends to make a peaceful and satisfactory outcome more 

doubtful. 

In the meantime President Cleveland appeals to Congress for definite authority to make another 

issue of bonds. The pestilent Populists, who are the only declared opponents of his Venezuelan 

message in Washington, are disposed to fight this other proposition also. Anything which weakens 

the President strengthens them and indirectly promotes all their financial and economic lunacies. 

The sagacious business men of the North and East have come to see this, and that is one reason 

why the President has met, and will meet, with no important opposition from New-York or New- 



- 183 - 

Support the President—No Back Down 

From The Evening Sun of Yesterday 

President Roosevelt of the Police Board said, regarding the President’s message on the 

Venezuelan question: 

“I cannot too heartily praise the admirable message of President Cleveland. He and Secretary 

Olney deserve the utmost credit. I am delighted that the House and Senate rose to the level of the 

occasion and acted in a spirit of broadminded patriotism. 

“The essence of the Monroe doctrine is that the European powers shall not be permitted to 

increase their territories on American soil at the expense of independent American States. Great 

Britain is now seeking to do this very thing at the expense of Venezuela, and we could not submit to 

it without loss of National self respect. 

“People talk of relying upon England’s honor and fairmindedness as a sufficient guarantee that 

she will not wrong Venezuela. I have never shared the popular dislike of England but I have also 

never shared in those delusions about her which, though not popular, are in some quarters 

fashionable. England never lets a consideration of abstract right or morality interfere with the 

chance for her national aggrandizement or mercantile gain. 

“I earnestly hope that neither the Chamber of Commerce nor any other body of reputable 

citizens will do anything that can even be construed into a failure to support to the fullest extent the 

American side of the pending question. And I would like to say right here that the talk of British 

fleets ransoming American cities is too foolish to me for serious consideration. American cities may 

possibly be bombarded, but no ransom will be paid for them. 

“I hope there will be no backdown. We should stand right up to the position we have taken. No 

consideration, personal, political, or financial, should influence any of our people. We should stand 

right behind the President and Congress, and demand that the position we have assumed shall be 

kept at all hazards. We earnestly hope that there will be no war, but far worse than any war would be 

a peace purchased at the cost of any loss of National self-respect.” 


277

24 – 25 December 1895 

- 184 - 

PRAISE FOR THE MESSAGE 

Tammany Hall Committee Indorses the President’s Action 

SUPPORT FOR THE NATION’S CHIEF 

Speeches by County Clerk Purroy, Senator-elect Grady, and Others 

President Cleveland’s message to Congress on the Venezuelan question was indorsed last night 

by the Tammany Committee on Organization at its meeting, held in the Wigwam. The attendance 

was large, and the meeting, which was called to adopt the call for the primaries, was given over for 

the most part to patriotic speeches. 

County Clerk Henry D. Purroy presided and John B. McGoldrick and William H. McDonough 

acted as Secretaries After the minutes were read, Mr. Purroy said that as he had a resolution to 

offer, he would ask Vice Chairman George W. Plunkitt to take the chair, Mr. Plunkitt did so, and 

Mr. Purroy, taking the floor, said that, although it might be out of order, he desired consideration of 

a matter that was now deeply agitating the public—President Cleveland’s recent message—and he 

asked that a special committee of five be at once appointed to prepare a resolution upon it. This was 

carried unanimously, and Mr. Purroy, ex-City Chamberlain T. C. T. Crain, William E. Stillings, 

Charles F. Allen, and William Sohmer were named on the committee. 

This committee lost no time in reporting the following resolution: 

Resolved, That the Democratic-Republican organization of the City and County of New-York hereby expresses 

its full approval of the well-considered, statesmanlike, and patriotic message of the President of the United States on 

the Venezuelan boundary question, and, speaking on behalf of the majority of the citizens of this metropolis, it 

pledges to him, as the trusted chief of a united nation, a most loyal and unwavering support. 

This resolution was read by Mr. Purroy, and was received with great enthusiasm. Mr. Purroy, in 

moving the adoption of the resolution, said: 

“The fearless maintenance of the great principle which more than seventy years ago was first 

proclaimed by President Monroe, and which last week was again enunciated by President Cleveland 

with a force which has since echoed and re-echoed throughout the world, must necessarily be of the 

most absorbing interest to every American citizen who is worthy of the name. 

“Stripped or all unnecessary verbiage, and apart from all quibbling distinctions, the Monroe 

doctrine, in the minds of a vast majority of our people, has for years assumed the full meaning of a 

National declaration that no European power shall ever be permitted to increase, by force or 

usurpation, its present possessions in America. 

“I know full well that some newspapers and certain distinguished representatives of trade, have 

warmly disputed this interpretation; but, on the other hand, our President and our Secretary of State, 

our House of Representatives, and our Senate, have deliberately proclaimed that such is its true 

meaning, and in doing so, their action has struck a responsive chord in the great heart of the 

American people, and has evoked a spontaneous, and almost unanimous, approval. 

“If the true meaning of the Monroe doctrine be as heretofore stated, then there never was a case 

which came more clearly and fairly within its purview than does the English-Venezuelan 

controversy, and if this doctrine be as important as we have often declared it, and if, therefore, our 

278


National honor demand that we uphold it at any cost, would it not be most pusillanimous on our 

part, while enforcing it unhesitatingly against a feeble neighbor, to shift and falter the first time it 

brings us face to face with a great power, our supposed equal in strength and influence? 

“This Venezuelan question has for me personally a peculiar interest, because, more than forty 

years ago, my father represented in this city a number of the South American republics, and largely 

influenced, perhaps, by this fact, I have always given to the affairs of Spanish America and their 

relation to the affairs of the United States more than ordinary attention, and latterly have tried, by all 

means at my command, to fully learn the merits of this boundary quarrel. 

“I shall not attempt, to-night, to discuss at any length the facts bearing upon it, because to my 

mind they have been set forth most clearly in the very able and logical letter of our Secretary of 

State, but I do desire to summarize my own opinion in the brief statement that the record 

conclusively shows that England’s conduct in this whole matter especially in refusing to submit her 

claims to just arbitration, is only one more example of that rapacious greed of power which, 

throughout her whole history, has repeatedly led her to unscrupulously encroach upon and usurp the 

possessions of weaker States, and which has justly won for her the title of ‘the robber nation of the 

world.’ 

“Apart from the protecting presence of the United States, South America presents to European 

avarice a most tempting field for invasion—an immense territory, nearly one-fourth of the whole 

globe in size, already occupied in part by European colonies, poorly guarded, comparatively sparsely 

populated, and richer, perhaps, in unexplored mineral wealth than any other similarly situated 

section of the world. Do we wish to see repeated on American soil the shameful duplicities and 

atrocities which disgraced humanity during the progress of the English thefts of India and Africa? If 

we do not, then let us not stand by now, idly and silently, while the first step in that direction is 

being deliberately taken, but let us speak out so plainly and so forcibly that our heartfelt and 

indignant protest shall suffice for all future time. 

“Mr. Chairman, some critics assert that President Cleveland, by his recent message, has made 

fearfully imminent what may be a most shocking and disastrous war. I do not agree with them. I am 

no worshipper of Mr. Cleveland, but I sincerely believe that by his well-considered and patriotic 

declaration he has for the first time opened full wide the eyes of Europe to our unalterable 

determination to protect, at any cost, American soil from European usurpation, and I am convinced 

that in so doing he has, by one well-directed stroke, accomplished far more toward averting war with 

Great Britain than could ever be attained by all the silly talk about mere imaginary kinship and 

brotherly love. 

“Mr. Chairman, the prospects of war growing out of the President’s message are not at all 

alarming. Every sensible man deprecates and dreads war, for he well knows the desolation and 

horrors which follow in its wake. But if, to preserve the Nation’s life and honor, it become necessary 

to arm her loyal sons, it may not be amiss for us at this time, when so much Is being said about 

Anglo-Saxon unity, to let it be proclaimed that, ready to respond to the first call of duty, there are 

hundreds of thousands of sturdy American citizens who will not be hampered ever so little by any 

kinship with England; but who, on the contrary, while gladly serving the country which they love 

better than their lives, will also see before them a golden opportunity to help to wipe out a debt 

which they owe their forefathers—a debt involving centuries of spoliation, misgovernment, and 

cruelty—a debt which Lally and Dillon only partly paid upon the field of Fontenoy.” 

Mr. Purroy’s address was frequently interrupted by cheering and hand clapping, and when he had 

concluded half a dozen men were on the floor demanding the recognition of the Chair. Mr. Plunkitt 

279

24 – 25 December 1895 

recognized Senator-elect Thomas F. Grady, who spoke on the resolutions in a way that set the 

braves of the wigwam cheering and yelling with enthusiasm. 

At the outset Mr. Grady got a shot at the so-called peace meeting at the Cooper Union by saying 

that it “is eminently fitting that, while in another hall an audience made up of the peace-at-any-cost 

class of citizens is repudiating the patriotic action of the President, here, in the oldest Democratic 

institution in the county—in the temple where the fire has been kept burning upon the altar of 

liberty for 106 years—we should indorse his patriotic message.” 

Mr. Grady then eulogized American citizenship and wound up this portion of his address with 

the declaration that “we should not claim to be American citizens unless we are ready to take such 

action as may be necessary to preserve our National honor.” At this the committee was aroused to 

high pitch of enthusiasm. This was also the case when Mr. Grady spoke of this country as a Nation 

of almost 70,000,000 people, “peaceable and at peace with all the world until our National honor is 

affronted.” 

Lord Salisbury, he said, had declared that the Venezuelan question was no concern of ours. 

“Lord Salisbury’s predecessors many years ago held a similar opinion as to certain other things 

relating to this country,” he said. 

“That eminent humorist who mixes railroad management with political ambition can see nothing 

in this great message but an electioneering dodge,” said Mr. Grady. 

“Yet the Congress of the United States, as one man, has sustained it. The people of this splendid 

federation of States have sustained it. I am not one bit afraid of its being an electioneering dodge. It 

was time to awaken the American spirit. Salisbury’s letter was nothing but a challenge to Americans 

to defend the doctrine that was first enunciated by President Monroe, and as such it will be accepted 

by this great Nation. The President’s message, for the first time, has notified England of the rights 

of this country, and of the firm intention of the people to maintain them in this generation.” 

Congressman William Sulzer got the floor next, and declared that the people who were meeting 

in Cooper Institute were Tories. 

“There were Tories in 1776; there were Tories in 1812, and of course there must be Tories in 

this country now.” 

Mr. Sulzer proceeded to tell of the enthusiastic manner in which the President’s message was 

received in Congress, and made a long speech on the various features of the dispute. He was 

frequently interrupted by applause. 

Ex-City Chamberlain Crain moved that a committee of five be appointed to report a resolution 

indorsing the President to the meeting of the General Committee on Friday night. 

The Chair held that this was out of order for the time being, and Augustus W. Peters then 

moved the adoption of the resolution, and it was carried with a great chorus of “ayes.” There was 

not a single “no.” 

Mr. Crain then renewed his motion and it was carried. Ex-Police Commissioner James J. Martin 

moved that the committee be the same as that which reported the resolution last night. This was 

agreed to. 

The action taken at last night’s meeting of the Committee on Organization was arranged for at 

yesterday afternoon’s meeting of the Tammany Executive Committee. . . 


280


- 185 - 

Peace, but Stand by the Monroe Doctrine 

From The Independent 

We have peace with England; we expect to maintain it. We are not beyond the province of 

diplomacy. England has given us no ultimatum, nor has she given Venezuela an ultimatum. It is not 

cowardly on our part to refuse to precipitate a conflict. It is moral cowardice not to persist in 

peaceful negotiations. 

We do not propose abject surrender. We propose to stand by the Monroe doctrine. England 

gave her cordial assent to it once; why not again? 

Lord Salisbury, in his last note, intimates a possible way out of the present dilemma. He says that 

when Venezuela’s internal politics become more settled, the British Government may be able to 

adopt a more conciliatory course toward her. Here is an opportunity for England to come out of the 

affair with honor. She has said she would not agree to our proposition for arbitration; she has not 

said she will not try to arrange the difficulty amicably with Venezuela. Let us have faith that 

honorable peace will be secured, and let the hotheads on both sides of the Atlantic, who are 

conjuring up the spectre of war be treated as chattering magpies. 


- 186 - 

SENSIBLE ENGLISH COMMENT 

London Newspapers Show Fairness in Discussing the Venezuelan Matter 

LONDON, Dec. 23.—The Pall Mall Gazette to-day prints an article in reference to the relations 

between Great Britain and the United States, in which it says: 

We are still friends or the Americans, and as the excitement ebbs the tide of sense returns. It is for every 

English influence to spread calmer thoughts and build a golden bridge by which the former kindness may return. 

The Westminster Gazette, under the caption, “Thank Goodness for the Holidays,” protests against 

the inflammatory opinions published by the press, which, it says, “are breeding bad blood between 

England and America, and making thoughts of war familiar to the peaceably inclined.” 

“There is plenty of room” declares The Gazette, “for common sense to be exercised in England, 

as well as in the United States. It ought to be recognized that Americans have a warm attachment for 

the Monroe doctrine and that there is a good deal of reason on their side.” 

The Chronicle will say to-morrow: 

If the commission is composed of men like Messrs. Phelps, White, and Edmunds, it must command respect, 

apart from its irregular origin. It would, in that case, occur to Lord Salisbury that some further proposal from him 

would be expedient, indeed necessary. This is not an instance where the diplomatic door can be closed with a bang. 

281

24 – 25 December 1895 

In its issue to-morrow The Standard will reargue the British position on the Venezuelan question. 

It predicts that American common-sense eventually will adopt its view, and says it may be presumed 

that the President will appoint as members of the commission men whose opinions are entitled to 

the respect of Englishmen, even though it may be impossible to admit their competence to 

pronounce a binding judgment on contested facts. 

The Daily News will discuss to-morrow the prospective labors of the Venezuelan High 

Commission. It will say: 

The commission, of course, will not invite communications from Great Britain, but should Ambassador Bayard 

require further information tending to elucidate our case, we feel sure that it will not be withheld. This country has 

never for a moment thought of pleading before the commission, but it cannot conduce either to our dignity or 

interests to leave the commission in the dark respecting the facts on which we base our demand. It probably will be 

found that the British dispatches to Washington will furnish all the information required. Should they fail to present 

our case completely, Mr. Bayard may very probably ask for further information on his own account. This will 

probably be freely and courteously supplied. 

The paper again dilates upon the return of moderation in America, and says: “The community 

has righted itself from unwisdom in a day and a night. We may all be proud of this. Assuredly no 

other race in the world would or could have performed the feat in the same time. We must be 

careful to guard against all language calculated to provoke reaction.” 


- 187 - 

THERE WILL BE NO WAR 

But the Country Will Prepare Itself to Meet One When It Comes 

CONCORD, N. H., Dec. 23.—Senator Gallinger returned from Washington this morning, and 

will spend the holidays at his home in this city. When questioned about the probable outcome of the 

present difficulty between this country and England over the Venezuelan boundary line, he said: 

“There will be no war between this country and England, because the people of neither country 

would sanction such an extreme measure, and I am confident that when England has played her 

game of bluff to the limit, an amicable understanding will be reached between that country and the 

South American republic. Congress is behind President Cleveland in this matter, and I believe the 

American people will sustain the position he has taken to a man. 

“The effect of the President’s message is bound to work good for the country. The true 

American spirit has been aroused to such an extent that the military defense of the country will, I am 

sure, now be placed in such condition that when such demands are made on foreign countries, we 

shall have the guns and men to back them up. We have gone on the theory that we can whip 

anything in sight too long. The present crisis has brought us to a full realization of our needs in this 

direction. Should war come, incalculable damage could be done before we could get ready to meet 

an enemy on an equal footing. In the present temper I think Congress will be very liberal in the 

matter of appropriations for military purposes. Further, I think it will awaken the American people 

282


to the necessity of securing various strategic points both in the Atlantic and Pacific, in order to make 

the country absolutely safe from foreign attack. 

“The gist of the whole matter in a nutshell is this: Neither Congress nor the American people 

desire war with England or any other country, but the time has come for them to assert their 

position and to maintain it against all odds. If peace can be maintained with honor, all right; if it 

cannot, war is the only alternative.” 

In regard to the currency question, the Senator said that Congress would pass bills increasing 

tariff on various articles in order to obtain more money for the Treasury, but beyond that nothing 

could be done, as the free-silver element in the Senate would prevent any action looking to the 

issuance of short-term bonds or bonds of any other character. 


- 188 - 

THERE IS NO “PANIC” HERE 

Wall Street Is Not America, and the People Are with the President 

From The Washington Post, (Ind.) 

The people in the country at large are not likely to be affected by the lamentations of Wall Street 

or to recognize in a panic on the stock market any real disaster to our domestic industries. The 

country will not be frightened into submission to England’s arrogant pretensions because a few 

speculators are forced to the wall by a flurry in gambling circles. If foreigners choose to get alarmed 

over the situation, and to send their stocks and bonds to New-York for sale at a loss, that is no 

concern of the American people. The fact does not mean that the railroads, mines, and 

manufactories upon which these stocks and bonds are based have lost their earning powers, and that 

is the only question with which we need concern ourselves. The whole aim and purpose of this 

unloading of American securities by foreign holders is to frighten or dissuade us from the course we 

have marked out for ourselves. 

The President has touched a patriotic chord, and the American people have responded with 

instant and harmonious enthusiasm. The whole Nation is behind him. What is needed, and what the 

President, no doubt, wants, is a retirement of the Treasury demand notes and the substitution for 

them of a currency equal in volume and in value, but divested of that prerogative which at present 

constitutes our greatest peril and embarrassment. This is not beyond the reach of immediate 

achievement. 

Unquestionably some legislation of this kind is imperative. Unquestionably it is the solemn duty 

of Congress to address itself to that task in a spirit of patriotic statesmanship. It is evident that 

Europe is now endeavoring to divert the United States from its present purpose, and that Europe 

has her allies in all the great American markets. The usurer and the money changer know neither 

creed nor nationality. 

At all times and in all places either is a man without a country, who knows only the god or 

avarice. It behooves us, therefore, as a people, to protect ourselves, to place our Treasury beyond 

283

24 – 25 December 1895 

the reach of any foe, to erect financial bulwarks against which neither the avowed foe nor the 

disguised traitor may prevail. This we can do. This the President asks us to do. 


- 189 - 

THE RESPONSE OF THE PEOPLE 

It Was Prompt, General, and Enthusiastic 

From The St. Louis Globe-Democrat (Rep.) 

The response to President Cleveland’s vigorous and straightforward assertion of the Monroe 

doctrine in the Venezuela case was prompt, general, and enthusiastic. In a certain sense, the message 

was a surprise, but it was not that form of the unexpected which confuses the public mind and 

provokes discord and controversy. The people were prepared for it, and it suited their mood of 

thought and feeling upon the subject. It aroused their spirit as American citizens like a match 

touched to gunpowder. In an instant all divisions in the way of political opinion and association 

were suspended and forgotten, and the sentiment of patriotism took possession of the situation. 

Republicans and Democrats alike discarded their party badges and ceased to recognize any emblem 

but the flag of the country. Congress did not stop to discuss the matter or to observe unnecessary 

parliamentary formalities, but brushed aside all minor circumstances and went directly to the main 

point of indorsing the message and giving notice of unanimous resolution to stand by it without 

compromise or equivocation. There were those, to be sure, who suggested the propriety of a little 

more deliberation in an affair of so much importance, but they did not press that view very strongly, 

and it readily passed out of sight in obedience to the prevailing idea that nothing should be done that 

could be construed as implying the least doubt about the determination to resist the claims of 

England at all hazards. 

It has seldom, it ever, before happened in our history that a proposition involving the possibility 

of war has been so quickly accepted and applauded by all parties and all classes. There is something 

very inspiring in such a demonstration, and the significance of it is not to be mistaken. It means that 

the spirit of the people, which is the strength of republican government, can be depended upon to 

manifest itself in a spontaneous and decisive way when any vital principle or interest of our political 

system is menaced by another nation. This potent force is not strikingly in evidence when the 

conditions are pacific and things are moving smoothly; but the moment that a threat is made against 

the institutions or the rights of the country as a country, it becomes a vivid and tremendous fact. 

The people are not simply given over to a passing influence of excitement. They are moved by 

an impulse of patriotism that is fundamental and invincible; and if England is wise, she will not fail 

to see that her best policy is to avoid rather than to invite the test of military collision. 


284


- 190 - 

THE PRESIDENT’S COURSE WISE 

We Should Ascertain the Right and Then Maintain it 

From the Seattle (Washington) Post-Intelligencer, (Rep.) 

The course suggested by the President is wise. The first step is to assure ourselves that we are in 

the right. Knowing out rights, we must maintain them. The selection of the members of the 

proposed commission calls for extreme care. Their duty will be of a judicial nature, and the 

consequences of their decision involve such vast interests that no suspicion of partiality should taint 

their conclusions. They will be placed in a most delicate and trying position. A decision in favor of 

England, just as it may be, would subject them to a momentary unpopularity which they should be 

strong enough and great enough to bear. Already, and not without cause, the policy of England in 

the matter of the Venezuela boundary has aroused the untrusting watchfulness of the United States, 

and it will be no easy matter for Americans with the most immaculate integrity to entirely divest 

themselves of a predisposition against British claims. 

The difficulty is the greater as the English side of the case will not be presented as will that of 

Venezuela. The republic will no doubt be represented before the inquisitorial body by fervidly 

patriotic advocates. England will be represented only by such documents and maps as the 

commission can have ready access to, unless England becomes impressed with the grim earnestness 

of the American people, and finds diplomatic means of furnishing to the commission testimony now 

confined in the archives of the Foreign Office. 

We hope, and we believe, that the question will be settled without bloodshed, but it must be 

settled with a full recognition of the great American doctrine which Great Britain, when it suited her, 

so heartily commended. 


- 191 - 

THE PEOPLE ARE A UNIT 

Not on European Consent, but on Our Will, Rests the Monroe Doctrine 

From The Denver News, (Ind.) 

Since England has declined to settle the question by arbitration, President Cleveland, that this 

country may have a safe basis to act from, asks Congress to make an appropriation for the expenses 

of a commission which shall make the necessary investigation to determine the true divisional line 

between the two countries. This he holds to be necessary, as a justification for saying to Great 

Britain that it must not set a hostile foot upon Venezuelan territory, and that it must confine its 

operations to its own country, with the line thus determined as the boundary. It was necessary to an 

effective enforcement of the rights of this country under the Monroe doctrine that some such 

285

24 – 25 December 1895 

course be pursued, and it seems that the one proposed is, under all the conditions, the safest and 

most just that could be devised. 

The effort of Lord Salisbury to show that the Monroe doctrine has never been recognized as a 

part of the international code is not pertinent to the controversy. Neither the President nor Secretary 

Olney seriously maintains that it has. They place their right to insist upon its observance upon a 

broader and safer foundation than the acquiescence of a congress of European Governments in its 

justice. It is that its enforcement is important to the peace and safety of this Nation, and is essential 

to the integrity of our free institutions. 

Whether Europe wishes to recognize it as binding upon it or not, the United States says it must 

recognize it. Let Europe understand that in excluding it and its institutions from encroachments 

upon the Western Hemisphere the people of the United States are a unit. 


- 192 - 

VENEZUELA AND ARMENIA 

Poet Watson Issues an Appeal to the Americans 

LONDON, Dec. 23.—William Watson, who, many persons imagine, will be appointed Poet 

Laureate as Lord Tennyson’s successor, has published the following poetic appeal to the United 

States in reference to the situation arising from the message to Congress of President Cleveland in 

regard to the Venezuelan affair: 

O, towering daughter. Titan of the West! 

Behind a thousand leagues of foam secure; 

Thou toward whom our inmost heart is pure 

Of ill intent, although thou threatenest 

With most unfilial hand thy mother’s breast: 

Not far one breathing space may earth endure 

The thought of wars intolerable cure 

For such vague pains as vex to-day thy breast. 

But if thou hast more strength than thou canst spend 

In tasks of peace, and findst her yoke too tame, 

Help us to smite the cruel, to befriend 

The succorless and put the false to shame. 

So shall the ages laud thee, and thy name 

Be lovely among nations to the end. 

The Westminster Gazette says, this afternoon, it fears the poet’s appeal to America comes too late. 

“There was a time” says the Gazette, “when Cobden’s dream of America’s effective help for the 

Armenians might have been fulfilled, but now President Cleveland has created just that diversion 

upon which the Sultan has been counting all along.” 

286



- 193 - 

CONDEMN “PEACE” MEETING 

What Citizens Say of the Cooper Union Gathering 

ALL SUSTAIN PRESIDENT CLEVLAND 

Opinions of Frederic R. Coudert, Gen. B. F. Tracy, 

Gen. Martin T. McMahon, and Others 

MUST MAINTAIN OUR SELF-RESPECT 

The Monroe Doctrine for the Protection of the United States, 

Not of South America 

The, so-called peace demonstration of the Single Tax League in Cooper Union Monday evening 

to protest against the President’s Venezuelan message, which resulted, contrary to the expectation of 

Henry George, Charles Frederic Adams, and other speakers, in an unrestrainable outburst of 

enthusiasm for the Chief Executive, was severely criticised by leading business and professional men 

of the city yesterday. 

Reporters for The New-York Times who interviewed a number of citizens secured ample proof 

that such a meeting is considered to have been unpatriotic and unfortunate. Some of the opinions 

are herewith given. 

What Frederic R. Coudert Said 

Frederic R. Coudert replied vigorously when asked what he thought of the matter. He said: 

“I consider it most unfortunate that such a thing happened. It was ill advised and unwise as well as unpatriotic. 

No matter what the views of these men may be with regard to the Venezuelan message, they should not have 

forgotten that just now the eyes of Europe and of all the world are upon us. 

“They might have known, one would think, that, with the great majority in the city against them, the result of 

the meeting could only have been what it was. 

It there is any result to such a meeting, what is it to be? Why, simply to encourage Great Britain not to yield to 

any reasonable concession that she might otherwise consider right. These ‘peace’ meetings can have no other effect. 

They cannot move the great body of New-York opinion. 

“Do they consider what it is that we desire? It is not war that we desire, but simply that the question of a 

boundary line should be settled by arbitration. 

“Of all questions requiring careful settlement by arbitration, this surely is one of the first. It is right in line with 

the spirit of civilization of this nineteenth century. 

“President Cleveland’s war talk – threatening war talk, if you like—was only used after eight or ten years’ 

earnest endeavor to have the matter peaceably settled.” 

Gen. Martin T. McMahon 

Gen. Martin T. McMahon, who was United States Consul to Paraguay during the Administration 

of Andrew Johnson, denounced the so-called “peace”, meeting, which, he said should have been 

named a “war” meeting. He said: 

287

24 – 25 December 1895 

“If anything is likely to bring about hostilities it is just such demonstrations, which, though childish enough in 

themselves, might be responsible for dire results. 

‘It was evidently the aim of those people to give out the impression that the United States is not a unit in 

support of President Cleveland’s action in the Venezuelan matter, whereas we know here in this country at least that 

every American citizen, irrespective of politics or creed, is only too glad to be numbered with the vast majority who 

think Mr. Cleveland did just right. 

“Mainly through the utterances of Chauncey Depew and a few other persons the British have got the idea into 

their heads that we are fooling over here, and that Mr. Cleveland is playing to the galleries for political following. 

The English, however, have misinterpreted Mr. Depew’s language. When he said Mr. Cleveland had done an 

excellent thing for himself and his party he was not disparaging his action any, but simply making a remark which 

would apply to a just and patriotic step made by any politician. 

No One Impugns the President’s Motive 

“It certainly was a good thing for the Democratic Party, but few persons will be so foolish or ignorant as to 

impute to Grover Cleveland what we might call the crime of creating popularity at the expense of his country. He is 

not that kind of a man. 

“The demonstration last night fell flat. Every one of these vapid protests meet a similar fate. I am sure. Some 

gentlemen who are unpatriotic enough to denounce the Monroe doctrine, I perceive, are trying to make capital on 

the score that Venezuela will concede the disputed land to Great Britain, in which case we will be left high and dry, 

a laughing stock for the world. Well, they are greatly mistaken. 

“The Monroe doctrine was originated for our protection. That of the South American States is secondary. 

“As a matter of self-defense, we are to regard the encroachments of any foreign power on this hemisphere as an 

‘unfriendly act’ If Venezuela says that the claim of the British is right and that the boundary line is the correct one, 

we have nothing more to do. 

“But if England coddles her into ceding over the land in question the United States will step in and say ‘Hands 

off!’ It is a question of sell-defense and nothing else. 

“The Monroe doctrine was promulgated in order that we, like the European nations, would not be compelled 

to have a balance of power; to maintain great navies and armies, and to engage in wars several times a century. It 

does not come to us by natural right probably, and it might not stand before an international tribunal, but it suits us. 

It is our simple method of keeping out of trouble and defending ourselves, and we will support it with the sword it 

necessary. We would not allow Spain to sell Cuba to England or Russia and we will not allow Venezuela to cede 

territory to England, even if she wants to. This is a phase of the question which seems to have received little 

consideration. 

Will Be Settled Peacefully 

“That the matter will be settled peacefully I have little doubt. England will fix it up some way. The tone of her 

press is already changing, and she realizes that war would be fatal to her. The fact that a commission is to be 

appointed does not mean war. 

Even should the commission decide that England is in the wrong about her boundary line, war will not follow. 

In this event, I think it probable that she will submit to the opinion of the Commissioners, who will be the most 

capable men to be found 

“Whatever else comes out of the affair, it will result in giving an impetus to American commerce such as she 

has never received before. 

“I spent a long time in South America, and while Consul in Paraguay, had many talks with Mr. Seward, who was 

one of the first to recognize the advantage of commerce with South America. Heretofore, most of the trading has 

been conducted by Europe. This is all wrong. 

“South America is the richest country in natural resources on the globe. It is the coming country. With it we 

could do without the Old World entirely. We are the great producers of the world, and it is now given to us to start 

up a commerce with South America that will make us the most powerful nation on the globe. This is what the States 

in South America want to see. 

“They would not be jealous of us, for they know that we would not encroach one hair’s breadth on their 

territory, and would protect then. 

288


“This war scare has opened up the whole country to us. They now look upon us as their natural protector, and 

to us they will look for all future arbitration, and be content with our decision. This, to me, is the real meaning of 

the Venezuelan question and the war scare.” 

Eugene G. Blackford said: 

Eugene G. Blackford 

“It was a very unwise thing indeed to hold meetings of this description or to give any expression of opposition 

to the sentiments expressed by President Cleveland in that message. It only encourages the feeling existing in 

England that it is all a sort of political bluff. I consider such a meeting must unpatriotic. 

Whether the Monroe doctrine applies or not in this case, there is one thing on which we all feel alike, namely, 

that it is the duty of the President to take every step possible for the enforcement of what we understand as the 

Monroe doctrine. 

“While I do not want war any more than these gentlemen who proclaimed themselves the other night as the 

apostles of peace, yet there are other things which are of worse – much worse – than war, and one of these is lack of 

self-respect on the part of the people. 

“Mr. Adams used some strong language, I see. Intemperate language does no good in any case.” 

Gen. Benjamin P. Tracy 

Ex-Secretary of the Navy Gen. Benjamin F. Tracy said: “I see no necessity for peace meetings. 

There will be no war, and therefore anti-war sentiment has no place. The outcome of the present 

excitement will be one of peace with dignity.” 

Corporation Counsel Stott 

Corporation Counsel Francis M. Scott said: “Whatever might have been any one’s opinion of the 

President’s message on the Venezuelan question, it is now the plain duty of all good Americans to 

back up the attitude in which the message has placed the country, and to stand behind the President 

firmly and loyally.” 

Gustav H. Schwab said: 

Gustav H. Schwab 

“I do not believe in approaching the Venezuelan subject in the way in which Mr. Cleveland has done it. I am 

opposed to jingoism and everything that savors of it, but I see no use in peace meetings. There is not a shadow of a 

prospect of war, and the sooner all cease to talk of war the better it will be. ‘War’ has already been expensive 

enough, and there is no need to continue its discussion longer. Those who talk war have nothing else to do. The ill 

success of last night’s meeting should convince all that such meetings are not needed.” 

George L. Putnam 

George L. Putnam, of Sweetser, Pembrook & Co., said: 

“I am not inclined to take that meeting seriously. In my opinion very little attention should be paid to it or the 

utterances of the men who made themselves conspicuous there. 

289

24 – 25 December 1895 

“It is really not worth discussing, and ought not be dignified by considering it seriously. There are always a lot 

of cranks seeking notoriety. Like the east-side Socialists Anarchists, they always have on hand a large amount of gas 

bottled up, and they must have a meeting as an outlet for this harmless effervescence. 

“Who is this man, Charles Fred Adams, anyhow? Whom does he represent, and who is behind him I never 

heard of the man, and if he was at all prominent or known in business circles. It is probable that I should have heard 

of him. The meeting will have no effect on the situation at all, and should not receive any consideration.” 

Approves the President’s View 

“What is your opinion of the Presidents course in the Venezuelan affair?” the reporter asked. 

“I am fully in accord with the action of the President,” [Mr. Putnam replied.] “I do not believe there will be any 

war, as the outcome of the President’s message, and I am confident there will be found an honorable means of 

settling the dispute. All this war talk is foolish exaggeration.” 

“If we consider calmly and dispassionately what the President has done we find he has simply asked Congress 

to give him the authority to appoint a commission to investigate the situation in Venezuela and report its findings. 

Of course, the message was couched in firm 1anguage, but that was necessary, under the circumstances. 

“The situation in Venezuela, to my mind, can be summed up in a few words. Down there are British Guiana, 

French Guiana and Dutch Guiana. The British territory is nearest to the Venezuela line. Great Britain wants, as 

usual, to extend her territory. She dare not attempt to extend her lines into the French territory or the Dutch 

territory, because she would not be permitted to do so by the European powers. 

“Venezuela being weak, the British Government takes advantage of this weakness to seize territory to which it 

has no right. It is simply might against right. 

Came at an Unfortunate Time 

“It was unfortunate, perhaps, that the message came at a time when our financial condition was not as 

promising as it might be. The war talk has been taken advantage at by the Wall Street speculators to make a raid on 

stocks, and, aided by London speculators, they created a short-lived panic, but that is now over. 

“President Cleveland holds the key of the financial situation by the power which is vested in him to issue bonds 

without reference to Congress, and in this he has the whip hand of Congress. If Congress passes a financial scheme 

that the President does not approve he will certainly veto it, and then fall back upon his power to issue bonds to 

relieve the situation. 

“When a business concern is in need of ready money and has good credit, it raises the needful cash by issuing 

promissory notes. This is exactly what the Government must do. I have the utmost confidence that President 

Cleveland understands the situation, that be has the courage of his convictions, and will do what he deems best for 

the interests at the country. 

“I am sure the President will appoint on the commission men of prudence and wisdom, in which the country 

will have confidence. Let us await in patience the report of this commission, and not lost our heads over the 

prospect of a war. I am sure that those who are now shouting for the conflict have not the welfare of the nation at 

hart. They will be disappointed if they think war will grow out of the present disagreement between the two most 

civilized nations of the world.” 

James Mitchel, ex-Fire Marshal, said: 

James Mitchel 

“The men who are responsible for the Cooper Union meeting are simply idiots, if not worse. It was utterly in 

bad taste, to put it mildly, that such a meeting should have been held at this time. 

“While there may be an honest diversity of opinion as to the expediency of the President’s message, it is the 

duty at every patriotic citizen to uphold the President, and it is simply outrageous that the men should have been 

permitted to denounce the Chief Executive of the country in the manner they did at the meeting. 

290


“The American people must bear in mind that they are dealing with the most grasping, unscrupulous, and 

deceitful nation on the face of the earth.” 

A. B. Boardman said: 

A. B. Boardman 

“The duty of the hour is to keep coal and do nothing to weaken the hands at the Government. Peace meetings 

are unwise, as are war meetings. Even casual excited talk about the Venezuelan situation should be avoided for the 

present. 

“When the commission reports, everyone will have a chance to make his influence felt. In the meantime we 

should each in his own sphere try to allay the existing excitement.” 

Major William Plimley 

Major William Plimley, Commissioner of Jurors, said: 

“I deprecate very much any such meeting as that held at Cooper Institute last night. This is no time for loud 

talking on either side of the question. It is a time for sober, serious consideration. Taken all in all, I believe, that the 

President was right in the position he took upon the Venezuelan question. 

“Our statesmen at Washington ought to be the best judges of this. It is unreasonable to say that these statesmen 

would unanimously indorse the President’s views simply on account of the popular clamor. I don’t believe that they 

would do anything of the sort, and, in view of their action, I cannot see the necessity for any such meeting as that of 

last night. It is no time for these mass meetings. 

“England has been grasping everything it can get, and it is time it was stopped. Lord Salisbury declared in his 

letter practically that we didn’t know what the Monroe doctrine was. Lord Salisbury cannot tell Americans that. We 

know what it is and what it means, and he cannot change our views.” 

George W. Miller 

George W. Miller, a prominent man in Good Government Club circles, said: 

“It seems to me that the meeting at Cooper Institute last night was a disgrace to American civilization. I have 

lived in Guatemala and I know about the eagerness of the British to seize every inch of ground they can with safety. 

“I believe all good Americans should back the President up in this matter, irrespective of their polities, and I 

don’t see why men calling themselves Americans should gather in public meeting to oppose the President. It was 

astonishing and painful to learn that one of the speakers at this remarkable meeting should have said that if the 

Monroe doctrine gives ground for the attitude of the President and Congress, then—the Monroe doctrine. That sort 

of talk is extremely ridiculous.” 

Alderman Goodman 

Alderman Elias Goodwin (Rep.) said: “Well, that peace meeting was an extremely warlike affair, 

wasn’t it? Some one said—the Monroe doctrine, eh? Well, in some places and on some occasions tar 

and feathers might be applied to the maker of such a comment.” 

Ex-Assemblyman John E. Brodsky said: 

John E. Brodsky 

291

24 – 25 December 1895 

“I have had but little time to read the reports of that Cooper Institute meeting, but from what I have heard of 

it, I should say it was decidedly un-American all the way through. 

“This is no time for such meetings. It is a time for every American to stand by his guns, shoulder to shoulder, 

like men. It is no time for whining or whimpering. Every good American will stand firmly behind the President. He 

is right in this matter. It is inconceivable to me that any man calling himself an American should use the language in 

reference to the Monroe doctrine that is credited to Charles Fred Adams.” 

John Simpson 

Superintendent of Streets and Roads John Simpson of the Department of Public Works said: 

“In a matter like this, I don’t care which of the parties may be in power: I believe in backing up the President of 

the United States. He is right. England is trying to secure all it can from the weaker powers, and I would like to 

know when it whipped a first-class power in war. 

“You asked what is my opinion of that meeting at Cooper Institute last night. I will tell you. I believe it was 

absolutely un-American. It was unpatriotic. It was indecent. Why, I read that a man named Adams said: ‘The 

Monroe doctrine be —.’ Now, I’ll bet you 100 to 1 that that fellow was either an Englishman, or has English 

connections. 

“I guess most of those fellows at that meeting had some English blood in them. Do you think any genuine 

Americans would participate in such a meeting? I don’t, and, as a Republican, I say that this is the time for 

Americans to stand by their President.” 

Alexander Meakim 

Ex-Excise Commissioner Alexander Meakim said: 

“Such a meeting as the one at Cooper Institute could not possibly have any effect. It was out of place and out 

of time. The President should be sustained by all good, honest Americans, whatever their politics. Certainly no 

American should seek at this time to side with England, and, in my opinion, no true American will do so. I firmly 

believe this whole matter will be adjusted entirely to the satisfaction of the people of the United States.” 

Col. E. T. Taliaferro said: 

Col. E. T. Taliaferro 

“I have not read the accounts of this meeting at Cooper Institute. I have heard that a speaker at it used language 

about the Monroe doctrine that no American can have the slightest sympathy with. If such language was used, then 

I want to say that the speaker was wholly out of touch with American sentiment 

“I am heartily, sincerely, and absolutely in favor of every line and every word of the Venezuelan message of 

President Cleveland, from the first word in it to the last. He is right and the people are with him.” 

John B. McGoldrick 

John B. McGoldrick, Reading Secretary of Tammany Hall, said: 

“Why should people who claim that they are American citizens hold such a meeting at such a time as this, when 

every true citizen should be upholding the hands of the President? In talking with people whom I have met since 

the President’s message was sent to Congress, I have found the universal opinion that the President is right. 

“I read that a man named Charles Fred Adams said: ‘– the Munroe doctrine.’ If that is so this man is a disgrace 

to the name of Adams. 

292


“It was John Adams, Representative from Massachusetts Bay in the Continental Congress who said, in his 

speech in defense of the Declaration of Independence: ‘It may be that it may ask the poor sacrifice of my life. Well, 

let it come. The victim will be ready at the hour of sacrifice, come when that hour may!’ 

“Is not this a time for Americans to stand up straight and assert their National Manhood? I believe it is, and I 

don’t believe this meeting at Cooper Institute will be regarded as anything more than a laughing matter. 

“To what strange usage do these people put their so-called talents? It is interesting to notice that they did not 

even contro1 their own meeting. Most of the people there were opposed to the doctrines they heard preached from 

the platform. 

“I believe these speakers are sadly in need of light. If they want to find it let them go among the people of the 

great masses of the common, everyday citizens, I mean, and hear how they talk. By so doing, they can not only gain 

information, but they can gain what they evidently need very much, and that is a lesson in honest patriotism.” 

John S. Melcher said: 

John S. Melcher 

“I think peace meetings at present are unnecessary and ill advised. It is well and eminently proper for the 

ministers to preach upon the horrors of war and inform those who are thoughtless of what might be precipitated in 

the event of war, and so set them thinking, but I can see no prospect of war. While I am not in accord with Mr. 

Cleveland’s final sentences in his message and his diplomatic methods, I think it will be well to have a complete 

understanding of the Venezuela matter, and it think a commission may be able to give it to us. I do not expect that 

it will every reach war, and favor dropping its consideration.” 

Levi Burgess said: 

Levi Burgess 

“We veterans do not fear war so much as some others do, but we do not go out of our way to search for it. We 

know what it is, and consequently dread to see a country plunged into it, but no thoughtful man considers war 

imminent. The sooner the agitation is dropped the better, and the fewer peace meetings we have the sooner it will 

be ended. Peace meetings are foolish. The war is already over, and the stock jobbers have reaped all they can get 

from it.” 

Moses Hirshfield said: 

Moses Hirshfield 

“It is possible that peace meetings will tend to allay the little that is left of the war scare—if it can now be found 

to be allayed. Such meetings are all nonsense; they amount to nothing, and, if anything, only serve to bait a few 

thoughtless persons, who, intent on having fun, attend them. 

“Those who first started the war scare did it through criminal ignorance or worse. They did not properly 

consider the message or purposely misconstrued it; the latter seems to be the fact, because no loss was occasioned 

until after the big bears had a chance to lay their heads together and use ‘war’ as a means for shaking out stocks held 

on margin. I have not noticed any losses except those made in purely speculative businesses, and although it matters 

little to me personally which way the stock market goes, the sooner the agitation is allowed to cease the better. 

“It certainly will not cease while unnecessary peace meetings are being held.” 

John J. Hickling said: 

John J. Hickling 

293

24 – 25 December 1895 

“In the event of war—which I do not regard as a probable outcome of the present agitation—we will have 

plenty of time to consider it. I attended the peace meeting last night, but with all the talk of war, I cannot perceive 

that we will have it inside of two years, if then. 

“The greatest agitation is by the ‘bears,’ who always seize every opportunity to demoralize the community and 

make what profits they can from the fears and misfortunes of others. 

“I see no occasion to fear war, but it is always well to consider everything in connection with it at such a time as 

this.” 

Samuel L. Finlay 

Samuel L. Finlay said: 

“It requires a great stretch of imagination for any one to see why peace meetings should be held. 

“A careful reading of the ‘war’ message would have convinced any one that war is one of the most remote of all 

international possibilities. My business is largely foreign, but I had no fear that it would be interfered with, as I have 

confidence in the diplomacy of the President and his Cabinet. 

“After the Government finds out the exact situation of affairs in South America, those who are confident of 

war will see how easily such matters can be adjusted.” 

Capt J. F. Nickles, a naval veteran said: 

Capt. J. F. Nickles 

“Old as I am, I would fight again if it were necessary. So far as Mr. Cleveland’s message is concerned, I heartily 

agree with the stand that he has taken. But as I read it, there is no prospect or necessity for war in it. Peace meetings 

are entirely uncalled for. 

“The trouble with those who are calling peace meetings is that they have no appreciation of the situation, and 

are afraid they may have to fight some day. They spend their time talking of the horrors of war when there is no war 

in sight. I fought for four years, and over, and have no fear of all, they picture. 

“I do not believe in war or expect war, but every true American should support the Government when it is 

right, as it is now, even before there is a remote possibility of war, and, after war is declared, if it ever is declared, he 

who does not fight is no American. 

“The Government is competent to handle this whole matter, and peace meetings will only serve to irritate the 

people.” 

James D. Bell of Brooklyn said: 

James D. Bell 

“I am personally opposed to calling these so-called peace meetings. At the present time, it would be unwise to 

create a feeling of distrust by denouncing the existence of distrust, as it would by any blatant jingoism or cry for war. 

“In other words, persons by holding peace meetings may imply that there is war in the air, and this would create 

a bear feeling in the financial centres. I need not say that I am in favor of free speech. I repudiate those who 

endeavor, whether by police clubs, or stones or cat-calls, to interfere with it. The question here is as to the 

advisability at these so-called peace meetings. I think they are inadvisable. While I concede the right of citizens to 

meet, I would be earnestly opposed to holding any such meeting in Brooklyn. Anyway, there is no danger at war. 

There is no good to be got out of such meetings. The Monroe doctrine, by the way, has never been formally ratified 

even by the American Congress. It has always been in the air. The present action of Congress is a more advanced 

step toward ratification at the doctrine than any action ever before taken. 

“There were two parts of the Monroe doctrine – the one declaring against further colonization of the land on 

the North American and South American continents, the other declaring against forcible occupancy of territory on 

either continent by a European power. 

294


“It seems to me the part relating to colonization is the one that really applies to the Venezuelan controversy.” 

Ex-Congressman Magner 

Ex-Congressman Thomas F. Magner of Brooklyn said: 

“I believe in the old saying: ‘My country, right or wrong, always my country.’ I am personally opposed to the 

calling of any of the so-called peace meetings in New-York or Brooklyn or anywhere else. 

“I am pained and ashamed that any citizens of the United States wish to take a position opposed to the 

unanimously expressed wish of President Cleveland and Congress. 

“It is a little short of treasonable to utter such sentiments as were expressed last night by some of the speakers 

at the meeting in Cooper Union. 

“All patriotic American citizens should denounce such a meeting and those in charge of it. These howlers are 

mere diletanti—the broth of our National life. They are always opposed to anything American. Their rantings are 

the result of ignorance and arrogance. Fortunately, there are not many of them. 

“I was surprised the other day at the peace meeting in Plymouth Church. Henry Ward Beecher was intensely 

patriotic, and I do not think such a meeting would have been held had he been alive. 

“But these shouters against the President and Congress and the Monroe doctrine are in such a small minority 

that we can afford to laugh at them. 

“There has been no time in the history of the United States when a public document has been received with 

more unanimity than President Cleveland’s Venezuelan message. 

“I do not think that any war was ever so popular as would be the war that might grow out of this message. The 

people are behind the President.” 

Charles J. Patterson of Brooklyn said 

Charles J. Patterson 

“I do not see that public meetings to agitate the Venezuelan matter, like the one held last night at Cooper 

Union, are productive of any good. 

“At the same time, I am not in favor of going to war with England on the mere report of any commission 

which may be sent to Venezuela. I do not believe that any commission is so certain to be right in their view of this 

controversy at to justify us in disturbing the whole civilized world with war. 

“I do not believe public demonstrations or mass meetings at this time can accomplish anything. They are far 

more likely to keep alive the heat than to allay it. The sooner we get down to a calm consideration of this whole 

subject, the more likely are we to arrive at correct conclusions. Public meetings, just now, are decidedly unfavorable 

to calmness.” 

Josiah T. Mareau 

Joseph T. Mareau of Brooklyn, late regular Democratic candidate for the Supreme Court, said: 

“I think this whole Venezuelan controversy is somewhat of a tempest in a teapot. All that is to be done is to 

appoint a commission, the duty of which will be to inquire into the merits of a quarrel between a weak South 

American State and the most powerful Government of Europe. 

“When, that inquiry shall have been completed, and we are then able to form a just opinion of the merits of the 

controversy, the question will be presented to us as follows: What action, in view of the determination of the 

commission, ought this country, the United States, to take? 

“To my mind, that is all that has been done up to this time, and it seems to me it ought to be approved by every 

true American. 

295

24 – 25 December 1895 

“I do not say we should go to war with England. We do not yet know positively enough of the merits of the 

dispute to say what ought to be done in respect to the controversy between Venezuela and Great Britain. 

“But we cannot stand calmly by and see a weak South American State bullied by this powerful European 

country without taking some interest in the matter. 

“These public meetings to discuss the controversy and the prospects of war do no good whatever. They disturb 

the public mind, and the financial flurry that has already been produced is aggravated by such meetings. 

“Meetings like the one held last night in Cooper Union are not patriotic. Nothing has been so far done by the 

President and Congress which is not precisely right. I should certainly be earnestly opposed to calling a meeting of 

this character in Brooklyn. I sympathize entirely with the action of the President and Congress. The action of 

Congress does not at all indicate that we want to go to war with England.” 

Edward M. Grout, last regular Democratic candidate for Mayor of Brooklyn, said: 

“The incidents attendant on last night’s so-called peace demonstration at Cooper Union, in New-York, clearly 

demonstrate to any mind that there is no wisdom in holding or in attempting to hold meetings of this sort pending 

the result of the inquiry. 

“Of course there is going to be no war between England and the United States. All danger of that is past. Public 

meetings will only arouse the passions of the people, will inflame men’s minds, and will do more harm than good. 

Such meetings are unpatriotic, unwise, inopportune. They keep up the excitement and the injury to business, instead 

of allowing sentiment to cool down. 

“The people should wait until the commission to be appointed by President Cleveland makes its report. This, I 

take it, will be months in the future, because the commission will first have to go through the original Dutch and 

Spanish documents in order to get at the facts as to the boundary which underlie the controversy. 

“No matter what are men’s individual opinions respecting the wisdom of the course of the President and the 

action of Congress they should act patriotically, and should stand by what has been already done, and await the 

result of the inquiry of the commission.” 

Frederick W. Hinrichs 

Frederick W. Hinrichs, Registrar or Arrears of Brooklyn, said: 

“It will be the part of patriotism to await quietly the result of the inquiry to be undertaken by the commission to 

be appointed by the President. 

“I do not think, with my present light, that I would be in favor of calling a ‘peace’ demonstration in Brooklyn, 

and rather deprecate these ‘peace’ meetings. On the whole, I think they do more harm than good. They serve to 

arouse the smoldering fires of feeling which lie in every man’s breast. A great many people are speaking without due 

reflection on the Venezuelan controversy. 

“I think very few of us really understand what the Monroe doctrine is. I do not think any one can claim the 

Monroe doctrine has ever been recognized as part of international law. 

“But what have Americans themselves hitherto claimed were the limits of the Monroe doctrine? Even that 

question has not been clearly settled. But, as I have said, I am in favor of quietly awaiting the result of the inquiry set 

on foot by President Cleveland and the Congress.” 


- 194 - 

COMMISSION NOT CHOSEN 

The President Silent Regarding His Selection of Representatives 

296


MAY BE ANNOUNCED ON THURSDAY 

It Is Now Expected that the Venezuelan Difficulty Wilt Be Adjusted 

in the Ordinary Way by the Diplomats 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 24.—The gossips have selected many distinguished citizens for members 

of the Venezuelan commission, and an evening paper announces that the President has completed 

his list. In the absence or any information whatever from the White House bearing on this 

important question, the public will be obliged to wait until the President is ready to announce his 

decision. The statement is made on good authority that he is still undetermined regarding the 

composition of the commission. He has communicated with men of high standing and necessarily 

will have to wait some time to hear from them. 

It is not probable that the announcements will be made before Thursday, at the earliest. 

It is the President’s desire to have this commission composed of men whose names will be a 

guarantee of the highest probity and intellectual force in connection with the proposed investigation. 

It s not known whether the commission will have three or five members, but the opinion prevails 

here that the smaller number will be decided upon. 

Much satisfaction is expressed in diplomatic circles with the tone of the latest London dispatches 

regarding the proposed commission. The statement of The London Chronicle that if the commission is 

made up of men like Messrs. Phelps, White, and Edmunds “it must command respect, apart from its 

irregular origin,” and that “it would in that case occur to Lord Salisbury that some further proposal 

from him would be expedient, indeed necessary,” is regarded as a strong indication that diplomacy 

will yet be resorted to in the settlement of the boundary question. 


- 195 - 

By Peaceful Methods 

From The Manchester Union (N. H.), (Dem.) 

There are in any event ninety-nine out of a hundred chances that the controversy can be settled 

by peaceful methods without the humiliation of either nation. It is, moreover, a firm assurance that 

there has been undue dilatory action in the matter, and, if the merits of the dispute shall make plain 

that this country has rights and interests to be defended, that National self-respect and honor will be 

maintained if every means in her power shall prove sufficient therefor. 

Both countries realize the terrible cost to all their interests in actual warfare, and there is no 

disposition shown on the part of either to incur it unnecessarily. Among people of such intelligence 

the necessity will not arise. This country, however, stands firmly upon its dignity, and that dignity 

will be respected and admired by fair-minded justice-loving people the world over. 


297

24 – 25 December 1895 

- 196 - 

A Vital Principle 

From The St. Paul Pioneer Press (Minn.), (Rep.) 

It is of no earthly consequence to the United States whether Great Britain or Venezuela 

possesses the strip of territory, about 30,000 square miles in area, which is in controversy between 

the two powers But it is of vital consequence to maintain the principle that no European power shall 

be permitted to extend its rule on this continent. For on the maintenance of that doctrine depends 

the momentous question whether some European power or powers shall take possession of Central 

America and control the Nicaraguan or any other canal which may be built through it at across the 

isthmus between the two oceans. To surrender that principle in Venezuela would be to surrender it 

everywhere else on the continent, including the vital points on which the security of our commerce 

and of our Pacific possessions depends. When England and Russia and France and Germany have 

parceled out Asia and Africa among themselves, what is to hinder them in their contest for 

commercial supremacy and military and naval power from extending their rival projects of 

colonization to South America? What is to hinder them if the Monroe doctrine is dead? They have 

been gradually dividing the Eastern world among them for the last sixty years. But they have kept 

hands off South America, although with its weak Governments and its enormously rich resources, it 

presented a far more tempting field for their rapacity than Africa or Asia or the islands of the sea. 

But they have not attempted to meddle with the republics which the Monroe doctrine called into 

being, because the Monroe doctrine stood guard over them like the flaming sword at the gates of 

Paradise. No, . . . it is not dead. It is the vital, the supreme principle of American public law, as 

bearing upon the international politics of the American continent. 


- 197 - 

It Is the American Doctrine. 

From The Savannah News, (Ga.), (Dem.) 

Nearly the whole of the press of the country heartily supports the President in the position he 

has taken in respect to the Venezuela boundary dispute. Both houses of Congress have practically 

declared that his position is the right one, by authorizing him to appoint a commission to inquire 

into the merits of the dispute. It is fair to assume, therefore, that the President has the approval of 

the people in what he has done. 

If the facts, as stated by Secretary Olney, are correct, Great Britain has been for many years, and 

is now, acquiring Venezuelan territory against Venezuela’s consent, and extending her system of 

government over it. We regard that as a violation of the Monroe doctrine, and we must either take a 

positive and determined stand against such a violation of the doctrine or abandon the doctrine for 

298


all time to come. If we draw back now the Monroe doctrine will cease to be a living principle. It will 

be as dead as if it had never existed. 


- 198 - 

NO DANGER OF WAR. 

Judge Lawson of Missouri Tells Why Hostilities Are Improbable 

COLUMBIA, Mo., Dec. 24.—Judge John Lawson, Professor of Law in the State University, is 

the author of numerous legal books. His work on “contracts” is used in nearly all of the leading law 

schools of America. Speaking of the threatened war with England, Judge Lawson said: 

“There will be no war, for the simple reason that England has given too many hostages to 

fortune in the shape of American investments. Every American citizen would be released for the 

time from any debt obligation to Great Britain, and, if it became necessary, the United States 

Government could, as a war measure, wholly annul obligations. 

“Even without Governmental action all business relations would cease. Take the suspension of 

English insurance companies doing business in America; all the obligations incurred under these 

would be canceled. It would be a long time before a commercial country like England involves itself 

in war with the United States.” 

Judge Lawson does not agree with the law professors of Yale and Harvard in their published 

utterances of international law. “International law,” said Judge Lawson, “is not a code of principles 

reckoned from all that pertains to justice. It is simply certain important principles which each nation 

has been able to get other nations to acquiesce in through force. The Monroe doctrine will become 

international law as soon as the United States, holding firm to its position, compels its recognition 

by another country.” 


Dec. 23, 1895. 


- 199 - 

LETTER TO THE EDITOR 

As at last night’s Cooper Union meeting I, at least, left the impression (on some minds) that I 

was wantonly, and deliberately indulging in offensive personalities against the President. I hope you 

will allow me to offer to the public, through your columns, this expression of sincere regret, and my 

most profound apologies, for having apparently allowed myself to be betrayed, in the excitement 

and confusion of the wrangle precipitated by the noisy and insulting shouts and interruptions of the 

Jingo contingent in the hall, into anything which was even susceptible of being so construed. 

299

24 – 25 December 1895 

Realizing, as I do, the utter impropriety, mischievousness, and bad taste of injecting offensive 

personalities into the public discussions of questions of policy, I wish publicly to withdraw any 

expression I may have really used, which even tended in that direction. In justice to myself I must 

say that, whatever may have been the actual result, the only intention I was definitely conscious of, 

the only attitude I supposed myself to be assuming, was simply that of indignantly protesting against 

the Jingoe’s preposterous demand that we accept as practically infallible and absolutely binding on 

all, the personal, dangerous, and suddenly announced polity of the very man whom they (the 

Jingoes) have, through their favorite organ, constantly ridiculed and jeered at with the very 

“personalities” which I quoted. 

As to “President Monroe and his doctrine,” what I said, was that, if the Monroe doctrine was to 

be distorted and perverted into a pretext far abandoning Washington’s policy of minding our own 

business, and for plunging the country into wars about the disputes of other nations, the people 

would “sooner or later be driven to exclaim ‘— both President Monroe and his doctrine’.” This I 

uttered purposely in extravagant burlesque, to cause, (as it did.), a laugh, which somewhat relieved 

the tension of feeling in the audience. 

CHARLES FREDERIC ADAMS 


- 200 - 

LETTER BY LORD PLAYFAIR 

He Does Not Believe Peace Will Be Broken Between England and America 

LONDON, Dec. 24.—The Times to-morrow will publish a letter written by Lord Playfair 

recalling instances of mutual expressions of brotherly sympathy by Great Britain and the United 

States. He reproduces President Cleveland’s “noble” words in reply to him when he introduced the 

arbitration deputation to the President in 1887. 

Lord Playfair dwells upon the celebration of the centenary of American independence in 

Philadelphia, and the enthusiasm displayed at a banquet there to the toast “The Mother Country,” to 

which he had the privilege of replying. He says he refuses, after what he has witnessed, to believe 

that the best people in the United States do not entertain an affection for Englishmen equal to that 

which Englishmen entertain for them. 

He refers to his spending eighteen successive Autumns in the United States, thereby gaining 

knowledge of many of the leading men there. He adds that the late James G. Elaine once assured 

him that nothing would induce the United. States to war with England, and authorized him to 

express this opinion to Lord Salisbury, who was then, as now, Prime Minister. The message was 

delivered. Lord Playfair concludes by urging the adoption of Mr. Gladstone’s “commonsense” 

advice, and declaring that the two nations admire and love each other. 

All the papers to-morrow will publish editorial articles, which are virtually long sermons from 

the text, “Peace on earth, good-will to men.” with special reference to the United States and Great 

Britain. They reaffirm their relief that peace will not be broken. 

300



- 201 - 

Our Right and Our Duty 

From The Cincinnati Tribune, (Rep.) 

The nations of this continent are civilized republics and our near neighbors, with whose political 

and commercial prosperity we are indissolubly associated. We have, therefore, a right and an interest 

to claim and maintain for them immunity from the uncalled-for and ambitious confiscation of their 

territory by European States, whose political and commercial interests are forever antagonistic to our 

own. 

This is a guiding principle of the American people, and whether or not it be the Monroe 

doctrine, or, if it be, whether that doctrine has ever been specifically admitted to the international 

code, we need not care. 

We may, without deserving the sarcasm and ridicule of the European world, declare that if there 

is a serious question whether or not Great Britain be not attempting unjustly to confiscate a portion 

of the territory of our neighbor and friend, Venezuela, we will investigate that question, and if we 

find and believe the right to be with our sister republic, we will by all legitimate means aid and assist 

her in maintaining that right. 

This, we take it, is the true position of the Administration. It was not a theory so much as a 

condition that confronted the President, and that condition he has fairly met. The theory is of purely 

academic interest; the political situation presents a question for National action. 


- 202 - 

KIND WORDS FOR AMERICA 

Literary Men of England to Their Brethren in This Country 

MESSAGE OF PEACE AND GOOD WILL 

Men of Letters in the United States Urged to Use Their Influence to Avert War 

over the Venezuela Matter 

LONDON, Dec. 24.—An address from British to American literary men relative to the Anglo- 

American crisis has been compiled by an author of distinction, whose name, however, is not made 

public, and already has a good many signatures. 

Among those whose names undoubtedly will appear on it are John Ruskin, William Lecky, 

Walter Besant, Richard Blackmore, Thomas Hardy, William Black, Rider Haggard, John Morley, and 

others equally prominent. 

After prefatory remarks, the address says: 

301

24 – 25 December 1895 

There are two paths before us. One leads we know not whither, but in the end, through war with all its 

accompaniments of carnage, unspeakable suffering, limitless destruction, and hideous desolation, to its inevitable 

sequel, hatred, bitterness, and the disruption of our race. It is this path that we ask you to join us in an effort to 

make impossible. 

There follow expressions of the pride felt by the British in American achievements, in the course 

of which it is said: 

Nothing in history has earned us more glory than the conquest of a vast continent by the Anglo-Saxon race. 

When our pride is humbled by the report of things that you do better than ourselves it is also lifted up by the 

consciousness that you are our kindred. There is no anti-American feeling among Englishmen; it is impossible that 

there can be any anti-English feeling among Americans. 

The address then dwells on the strength of the tie of literature, which, it says, will continue to 

live after the fever of any political strife shall have passed away. It is argued that if war should occur, 

English literature would be dishonored and disfigured for a century to come by patriotic songs, 

histories of victories and defeats, records of humiliation and disgrace, and stories of burning wrong 

and unavenged insult. “These,” it is said, “would be branded deep in the hearts of our peoples, who 

would so express themselves in poems and novels as to make it impossible for any of those who had 

lived through such a fratricidal war to resume their former love and friendship.” 

In conclusion the address says: “Poets and creators, scholars and philosophers, men and women 

of imagination and vision, we call upon you in the exercise of your far-reaching influence to save our 

literature from dishonor, and our race from lasting injury.” 


- 203 - 

THE COUNTRY STANDS BY THE PRESIDENT 

The United States now holds the position it has held for twenty-five years—that if Great Britain 

has a lawful claim upon the territory also claimed by Venezuela, she can easily and surely prove her 

title before impartial arbiters; that as a strong power disputing with a weak one she ought to be 

willing to arbitrate if fair dealing is her purpose. If fair dealing is not her purpose, if her claim is not 

well founded, then, refusing arbitration, she clearly contemplates an act of aggression upon 

Venezuela. About that we have something to say. 

President Monroe declared our policy in 1823 in these words: 

But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence 

we have on great consideration and on just principles acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the 

purpose of oppressing them or controlling in any other manner their destiny by any European power in any other 

light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. 

President Cleveland has declared that the action England apparently contemplates is plainly that 

which Monroe said was dangerous to our peace and safety. 

302


“If a European power,” he says in his message, “by an extension of its boundaries, takes 

possession of the territory of one of our neighboring republics against its will and in derogation at its 

rights, it is difficult to see why, to that extent, such European power does not thereby attempt to 

extend its system of Government to that portion of the continent which is thus taken.” That is the 

American doctrine. It anybody doubts that it is the spirit of the American people let him read the 

array of testimony marshaled in our columns yesterday and to-day. 

The President declares our hearty assent to any lawful claims of Great Britain. We should accept 

as final the finding of an impartial tribunal before which Great Britain should succeed in proving her 

case. Against her assertion of claims not lawful, against intended acts of aggression on American 

soil, we set up the policy we have asserted and maintained for seventy-seven years. We have taken 

our position in the present dispute after mature consideration, deliberately, justly, firmly. 

Shall we recede? Shall we abandon the Monroe doctrine? Not because there has been a 

stockbroker’s panic. Not because men whose vision is bounded by the tall buildings of down-town 

New-York denounce the President for an act that, while it has caused them loss and pain, has 

thrilled the country with an awakened sense of our National dignity and responsibility. We needed 

some such appeal to emotions nobler than those aroused by the contemplation of interest, tables 

and prices current. 

If American citizenship is to be rated as a mere huckster’s license, then it is time to remove 

Washington’s statue from it pedestal on the Sub-Treasury steps, to make a market of Independence 

Hall, and to sink the Liberty Bell in the deep sea. Not a man of all the crazy throng in the Stock 

Exchange believed we were to have a war with England. Three-quarters of them, were plunged into 

genuine fright by the crafty tactics of the other fourth, who swept in dirty gains from their halftreasonable 

assaults upon the Nation’s credit and position. But strong and patriotic hands put a stop 

to their work before serious harm was done, and the banks of New-York, always conservative and 

patriotic, have helped to stamp out the panic. Assuredly the National policy is not to be reversed at 

the begging of any such patriots for profit only. 

But must the appeals of the pulpit for Christian forbearance and peace pass unheeded? No, they 

will evoke hearty amens from every patriotic heart in the land. We have striven for peace in this 

matter for twenty-five years. We have been most Christian in our forbearance. We have exhausted 

the arts of diplomatic persuasion in the effort to induce Great Britain to send the controversy to 

arbitration. It is amazing that the Christian pulpit of New-York and Brooklyn should have wasted in 

vain criticism of the President and in ill-informed strictures upon the Monroe doctrine that prayerful 

emotion which it ought to have employed in the effort to incline the obdurate heart of her Majesty’s 

Prime Minister to an honorable settlement of the Venezuelan dispute before a court or impartial 

arbitrators. 

Those who set themselves up as the censors of the American President, the American Congress, 

and the American people have chosen the easy role. It costs nothing to declare that the Monroe 

doctrine has expired by limitation, that even if it existed it would be inapplicable to this dispute, and 

that the matter is not worth making a fuss about, at least not in opposition to Great Britain, for the 

English are our good friends and kinsmen, while the Venezuelans are, as Prof. McVane of the 

Government and Law Department of Harvard University has it, “not American born,” or are 

Roman Catholics, as the Rev. Lyman Abbott avers. This line of argument requires no expenditure of 

time or tissue in research, nor do Mr. Chauncey Depew’s unworthy political jests about the 

President and erroneous statements about our relations to the Venezuela case cost him more than 

the simple effort of talking to a stenographer. 

303

24 – 25 December 1895 

Now that the “war scare,” which was altogether the creation of those who have assailed the 

President and his message, has passed away and the firm convictions of the American people have 

made themselves known and felt, it is evident that the position taken by the President to prove by its 

practical use that the Monroe doctrine “was intended to apply to every stage of our National life,” 

will not be abandoned. We shall not desert that advanced position because of schemes for 

speculative or party profit. It is the American position. It is held by the Government and by the 

masses of both parties alike, by all citizens who have taken the trouble to think rightly upon the 

question. It is the peaceful position. Firmly maintained by us, it will never he assailed by foes from 

across the sea. 


- 204 - 

THE POSITION OF SPAIN 

Understood that She Will Give Access to Her Venezuela Records 

LONDON, Dec. 24.—The Standard to-morrow will publish a dispatch from Madrid saying It is 

understood that the Government will not object to the United States sending a commission to 

Madrid to seek information from the Spanish archives regarding the boundaries of Venezuela and 

British Guiana and Brazil and French Guiana, but previously will intimate that allowing access to the 

archives is an act of courtesy, and does not imply in the slightest degree that Spain admits the 

soundness of the Monroe doctrine. 

It is an open secret in diplomatic and political circles, the dispatch says, that the Spanish 

Government will adopt the attitude of all the European countries whose opinions on the subject 

Spanish diplomats recently have ascertained are adverse to the Monroe doctrine. 

The dispatch adds that, in view of the unanimous protests against President Cleveland’s message 

in the press and by the public, Señor Canovas del Castillo, the Prime Minister, cannot afford to play 

into the hands of the United States, however much he may desire to avert fresh developments 

concerning Cuba. 


- 205 - 

War a Long Way Off 

From The Chicago Times-Herald, (Ind.) 

The recent deliverance of the President and of the Secretary of State, backed as they are by the 

prompt adoption of a resolution authorizing, at the President’s request, the appointment of a 

commission to investigate the boundary line between Venezuela and British Guiana, will be accepted 

304


the world over as assurance that the people of the United States are dead in earnest in their purpose 

to resist foreign aggression on this continent. 

To assume, however, that we are ready to go to war on the Venezuelan question without 

exhausting every means known to go to war on the Venezuelan question without exhausting every 

means known to diplomacy and ways of peace to bring England to accept our view of the case is a 

mistake. The action of the President and Congress is not properly so interpreted by the British press 

and people. 


- 206 - 

SCHOMBURGK ON ALIEN SOIL 

Recognized that He Was Passing Beyond the English Line 

LANCASTER. Penn., Dec. 24.—F. R. Diffenderfer yesterday forwarded to Secretary of State 

Olney a little volume, discovered among books in his possession, which will doubtless prove of 

value in the present difficulty with England. This book is Vol. XXXIX. of “Jardine’s Naturalist’s 

Library,’ published in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1843. It is a treatise on the fishes of Guiana, written 

by Robert Hermann Schomburgk, who surveyed the boundary line on which Great Britain now 

founds her claim to such a large share of territory belonging to Venezuela. 

Prefixed to the book is a memoir of nearly one hundred pages, including a lengthy account of his 

operations in Guiana and Venezuela between the years 1835 and 1839. It is this part of the volume 

which may prove important to the Boundary Commission authorized by Congress. 

Schomburgk and a party of explorers, on Sept. 20, 1838, sailed up the Takutu River and entered 

the Mahu village, where they remained several days, the guests of the Indians. 

Schomburgk says: “At length the column was put in marching order, the coxswain at the head, 

carrying the British union flag, under which they had been marching for the last three years through 

hitherto unknown parts of Guiana. Now it was to lead them beyond the British boundaries, into 

regions known only to the copper colored Indian; but they were animated with the hope of reaching, 

for the first time, from this side of the continent, the point which Baron Humboldt had in 1800, 

after many difficulties, arrived at from the westward—namely, Esmeraldo on the Orinoco.” 

This would indicate that whatever surveys or lines Schomburgk may have made afterward, in 

1838 and 1839, he then admitted that that territory was alien to the British. 


- 207 - 

RUSSIAN EDITORS HOPE FOR WAR 

They Sympathize with America, and Do Not Hesitate to Say So 

305

24 – 25 December 1895 

Moscow, Dec. 24.—The entire Russian press is discussing the Anglo-American crisis with an 

ardor approaching enthusiasm. 

The papers daily calculate hopefully the chances of a conflict. They wholly sympathize with the 

United States, and are hostile to Great Britain. 

They do not conceal their delight that Great Britain possibly may be paralyzed in the East by her 

troubles in the West. 


- 208 - 

WILLIAMSBURG CITIZENS PATRIOTIC 

Condemn the Peace Meeting and Uphold the President 

In the Eastern District of Brooklyn, yesterday, one of the most pronounced sympathizers with 

President Cleveland in his support of the Monroe doctrine, and one who was equally emphatic in 

denouncing “peace at any price” meetings, was the Rev. Sylvester Malone; one of the Regents of the 

State University. 

“Who speaks of war at this momentous hour?” asked the venerable pastor, recalling Southey’s 

lines on the eve of Waterloo. “We have no burning desire to see the two civilizations clash, but we 

do not want to see one civilization, and a representative monarchy at that, ride roughshod over us. 

“The question at issue, it seems to me, is likely to lead to a decisive struggle, sooner or later, 

between the rival systems of republicanism and of monarchy upon this continent. We, as a people, 

have forever separated ourselves from Europe and its traditions, but Europe, however, seems 

resolved not to permit us to remain in republican isolation, and besides hemming us in along the 

4,000 miles of our Northern border, has also erected strong fortifications in the West Indies. 

“America stands for nothing if not for a new and a greater civilization than the world had ever 

seen. Our ethnological and racial diversifies, our geographical position, situated as we are n the 

midway of the world of the future, having 300,000,000 of Europeans on one side of us, and 

600,000,000 Asiatics on the other; with, our magnificent domain kissing the bosoms of two oceans, 

render it necessary that this mighty republic, with its vast wealth and resources shall not tip its hat to 

any other nation beneath the sun. 

“At the same time, we are not courting war and I don’t believe there will be any war or that the 

President has given any justification for the belligerent tone attributed to his message. I am a 

Republican, but I heartily and cordially support the President in his action. This is not only our duty 

to ourselves, but the President deserves such support. 

“It is eminently wise on his part to send commissioners to examine all the facts. If there is 

justification for our interference then we ought to stand together once assured that we are right as 

one man, and cheerfully take up arms to vindicate the Monroe doctrine for all time. 

“No power in. the world to-day dare face America. Even in her present comparative state of 

unpreparedness, it is obvious that the powers of Europe fear the weight of her influence since two 

paragraphs in the message of her Chief Magistrate have awakened a terror unparalleled since the 

days when the word of Napoleon sent a cold shiver through the Cabinets of Europe. 

306


“The miracle of the nineteenth century is that within the short period of a generation the North 

is willing to take the Southern Confederates into her army and navy, and the latter are glad and 

anxious to demonstrate their participation and identity with the prosperity of their victors and to 

share alike in the fortunes and the patriotism of their common country. 

“This is a significant state of things and one that doubtless does not escape the eyes of our rivals 

for the commerce of the world and for the supremacy of the seas. 

“I think those peace meetings are apt to indicate an apparent division in our ranks and so create 

a false impression. It ought to go forth as something incapable of contradiction that we on this 

question are a united people. The President has spoken. A Congress overwhelmingly Republican has 

nobly sunk all party differences, and given to the President’s action its heartiest co-operation. 

“That is one of the grand features of this Venezuelan incident. It shows that as a people we can 

lay aside party pride and, confronted by any National danger, make a holocaust of ourselves and of 

our political feelings upon the altar of patriotism. 

“This sacrifice is a lesson and a bright example for the older civilizations and has tended in no 

small degree to make America a model for other nations, which was the ideal intended by our 

Revolutionary fathers. 

“One of the gratifying evidences of this unity is the tribute paid to America recently by Mgr. 

Satolli, who, carried away by the electric thrill of our institutions, recognized their magnificent 

character in a unity of purpose when the nation’s future is at stake. 

It speaks well for the foreign population that it is thoroughly American, and that all classes, 

however divided in politics, are with the President 

“Speaking for myself. I can say that I have always strongly advised my Catholic and Irish fellowcitizens 

that they must not dream of ever going into a fight in the United States under any other flag 

than that of the Stars and Stripes, and with the single object of seeing that this great Republic of the 

West would, in any military contingency, triumph over all its enemies, come from what source they 

may.” 

The Rev. N. W. Wells 

The Rev. Newell Woolsey Wells, the pastor of the South Third Street Presbyterian Church, said: 

“I think those peace meetings are making altogether too much of the matter. Americans are 

eminently a common-sense people, and common sense will enable them to see that the President’s 

message is pacific in tone. The President could not do anything else in view of the circumstances. 

We have not yet begun to think seriously of war, and I take issue with, the Rev. Lyman Abbott’s 

view of the situation. We are not affected much in a financial sense by the message. It is probable 

some railroad securities and certain inflated stocks may have been hurt, but the general property of 

the country is secure. A business man told me yesterday that no solid houses are likely to suffer in 

consequence of the message, and that the atmosphere was sure to be so cleared that in the long run 

we will be gainers by the belief in the permanence of our institutions and the impossibility of an 

attack by any foreign State.” 

The Rev. Frederick T. Koerner 

The Rev. Frederick T. Koerner, pastor of the German Lutheran Church, in Driggs Avenue, said: 

‘I stand by the President in the position he has taken, and I hope Congress will sustain him to the 

307

24 – 25 December 1895 

end. Peace meetings are uncalled for, although I believe that their promoters are honest, and 

inspired by patriotism in the course they are adopting. There is not the least danger of a war, 

however, and if one should come, my knowledge of foreign-born residents leads me to believe that 

they would stand for the rights of the United States quite as firmly as the native-born.” 

The Rev. Samuel K. Spahr 

The Rev. Samuel K. Spahr, pastor of Trinity Methodist Episcopal Church, at Roebling and 

South Fourth Streets said: 

“The reading of the President’s message stirred up my blood into such a refreshing condition as 

I have not experienced for a long time. I regret anything in the shape of public meetings that would 

indicate any division or lack of unanimity among our people, and our representatives in both 

branches of Congress have shown us a magnificent example of loyalty and discipline, and the people 

should also on their part see that all party lines and prejudices are ignored.” 


Editor’s note: Despite the headline, Williamsburg is not mentioned in this lengthy article. 

308


- Part 7 - 

26 - 31 December 1895 

309

26 – 31 December 1895 

310


- 209 - 

Editorial 

From a Letter of Secretary of State Frelinghuysen to 

Our Minister to Venezuela, November, 1882 

“You will take an early occasion to present the foregoing considerations to Señor Seijas, saying 

to him that, while trusting that the direct proposal for arbitration already made to Great Britain may 

bear good fruit (if, indeed, it has not already done so by its acceptance in principle,) the Government 

of the United States will cheerfully lend any needful aid to press upon Great Britain in a friendly way 

the proposition so made.” 


- 210 - 

Editorial 

Secretary Bayard to Minister Phelps, February, 1887 

“. . .Nevertheless, the records abundantly testify our friendly concern in the adjustment of the 

dispute, and the intelligence now received warrants me in tendering, through you, to her Majesty’s 

Government the good offices of the United States to promote an amicable settlement of the 

respective claims of Great Britain and Venezuela in the premises. 

“As proof of the impartiality with which we view the question, we offer our arbitration, if 

acceptable to both countries. We do this with the less hesitancy as the dispute turns upon simple and 

readily ascertainable historical facts. 

“Her Majesty’s Government will readily understand that this attitude of friendly neutrality and 

entire impartiality touching the merits of the controversy, consisting wholly in a difference of facts 

between our friends and neighbors, is entirely consistent and compatible with the sense of 

responsibility that rests upon the United States in relation to the South American republics. The 

doctrines we announced two generations ago, at the instance and with the moral support and 

approval of the British Government, have lost none of their force or importance in the progress of 

time, and the Governments of Great Britain and the United States are equally interested in 

conserving a status the wisdom of which has been demonstrated by the experience of more than 

half a century. 

“It is proper, therefore, that you should convey to Lord Iddesleigh, in such sufficiently guarded 

terms as your discretion may dictate, the satisfaction that would be felt by the Government of the 

United States in perceiving that its wishes in this regard were permitted to have influence with her 

Majesty’s Government.” 


311

26 – 31 December 1895 

- 211 - 

Editorial 

Secretary Blaine to Mr. Lincoln, Minister at London, May 1, 1890 

“Mr. Lincoln is instructed to use his good offices with Lord Salisbury to bring about the 

resumption of diplomatic intercourse between Great Britain and Venezuela as a preliminary step 

toward the settlement of the boundary dispute by arbitration.” 


- 212 - 

Editorial 

Mr. Lincoln’s Reply to Mr. Blaine, May 5, 1890 

“In reference to the Venezuela boundary question, I have the honor to acquaint you that, having 

received on the 2d inst. your telegraphic instruction, I had to-day by appointment an interview with 

the Marquis of Salisbury, as I have informed you by a cablegram. . . In the course of the 

conversation he spoke of arbitration in a general way, saying that he thought there was more chance 

of a satisfactory result and more freedom from complication in the submission of an international 

question to a jurisconsult than to a sovereign power, adding that he had found it so in questions 

with Germany. If the matter had been entirely new and dissociated from its previous history, I 

should have felt from his tone that the idea of arbitration in some form to put an end to the 

boundary dispute was quite agreeable to him.” 


- 213 - 

Editorial 

The Venezuelan Minister to Secretary Gresham, March 31, 1894 

“Vainly have the Government of the United States, on different occasions and under various 

forms, expressed their wish to see the difficulty settled by award of arbitrators, and vainly, also, have 

the Governments of Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, Chile, Argentine Republic, Guatemala, Salvador, 

Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Haiti interposed in that direction their friendly recommendations to the 

Foreign Office. Her Britannic Majesty’s Government have insisted on their refusal. 

“The precedents established by Great Britain herself in various cases of similar differences with 

other nations have proved equally powerless to influence her mind and to persuade her to adjust in 

the same way her conflict with Venezuela. 

312


“In 1829 she consented to submit to the decision of the King of Holland a boundary question 

with the United States; a similar one with Portugal, in 1872, to the judgment of the President of the 

French Republic, Marshal MacMahon, and recently, in 1893, to the Court of Arbitration of Paris the 

difference concerning the sphere of action and jurisdiction in the Bering Sea, which can properly be 

called a boundary question. 

“If Her Britannic Majesty’s Government believes that in the cause, nature, and object of their 

dispute with Venezuela there is something to make it differ from the disputes just mentioned, and to 

sufficiently legitimate her obstinate resistance; if they consider their titles to be so unquestionable 

that it is useless to ascertain on whose part justice is; if they are afraid to abandon a right which, in 

their opinion, is certain and perfect, and to expose the dignity and independence of their country by 

allowing an authorized and impartial court to tell them whether or not their pretensions are fully 

justified, then those motives themselves could be submitted, to the judgment of arbiters, under this 

form: Is Great Britain right in refusing to surrender to arbitration her boundary controversy with 

Venezuela? If what she seeks is truth, why does she object to its being established and proved by the 

arbiter or arbiters?” 


- 214 - 

AGREEMENT OF SPAIN ADVISED 

Venezuela Is Contending for the Same Rights Against England 

That the Spanish Colonists Claimed 

LONDON, Dec. 25.—The Nacional of Madrid advocates an entente between Spain and the 

United States regarding Venezuela, on the ground that Venezuela is merely contending for the same 

rights against England that Spain used to claim when all the Spanish-American Republics were her 

colonies. 

The Standard to-morrow will print a dispatch from its Madrid correspondent saying that the 

article in the Nacional was evidently inspired, and that it has caused a sensation. 


- 215 - 

Must Be Sure of Our Ground 

From the San Francisco Examiner, (Dem.) 

The proposed commission is not to be a tribunal at all. It is simply an agency to aid our own 

Government in reaching a conclusion. When the information collected by the commission is studied 

by the President, his conclusions will be presented to Lord Salisbury, not as the findings of an 

313

26 – 31 December 1895 

arbitration board, but as the views of the Government of the United States, and the question before 

the British Premier then will be simply whether he is willing to make an arrangement satisfactory to 

the United States or not. We have an idea that by that time he will. 

In the selection of the members of the commission President Cleveland, of course, will act under 

the fullest sense of his responsibilities. He will choose men of judicial minds, men who have been 

accustomed to sift evidence and who have never made themselves conspicuous by extreme opinion 

upon foreign affairs. He will carefully avoid the choice of mere politicians. We should like to see him 

include in the body some of the authorities on international law from the great universities, and 

perhaps a member or two of the Supreme Court. In whatever action we may take we must be sure 

of our ground. The report of this commission must be so candid, exhaustive, and convincing as to 

make the justice of our position apparent to the honest judgment of the world, even in England 

itself. 


- 216 - 

England’s Aim 

From The Buffalo Courier, (Dem.) 

There appears to be very little doubt that Great Britain’s chief aim is to obtain control of the 

mouth of the Orinoco, and undisputed control of the mouth of this mighty stream would be an 

immense acquisition, immeasurable in value. It would be far more important to her than the 

possession of the additional timber lands and gold mines in the disputed territory. To say that the 

British command of the mouth of the Orinoco would not materially shape the destiny of Venezuela 

is absurd, and to assert that the United States should view the matter with indifference is not 

defensible. Happily all the facts in the case and the far-reaching issues involved will be put before 

the world in the report of the coming Venezuelan Commission. 


- 217 - 

ENGLAND AND AMERICA 

The address of the British authors to the American authors must enlist the sympathy of every 

reader of the English language, not only in the British Islands and the American hemisphere, but in 

all countries in which that language is read. It is as true of this country as it can be of England that 

she rejoices in the achievements that are first addressed to the “other public” of English-writing 

authors. Every one of these the American as well as the English reader counts among his 

possessions. It was said by Dr. Johnson: “The chief glory of every nation arises from its authors.” 

314


But these two nations are in the case, exceptional in human history, where the glories of a great 

literature are equally cherished by two nations. 

Indeed, nothing has been more noteworthy in the discussions that have been aroused by the 

special message of President Cleveland than the absence of what may be called personal feeling. A 

question has arisen for international lawyers and for publicists which it is felt on all sides it would be 

not only inhuman but absurd to submit to the arbitrament of arms. It concerns the historical policy 

of this Nation, a policy adopted beyond the memory of any American now living. There are fears 

that the action of Great Britain may infringe upon this policy, originally adopted, as Lard Salisbury 

has reminded us, with her entire approval. Those fears will not be allayed if Great Britain insists 

upon being the judge in her own cause, the other party being immeasurably weaker than herself and 

unable of herself to resist the enforcement of an unjust judgment. 

In all this there is nothing that ought to excite any personal animosities or at all to change the 

friendly relations of individual Americans and individual Englishmen. In fact, those relations have 

not been disturbed or imperiled by the President’s emphatic notification that, as to the larger 

question involved in a dispute in itself trifling, his countrymen are very deeply in earnest. Individual 

Englishmen and individual Americans find it possible to maintain their friendships, and this not by 

avoiding the subject, but while discussing it fully and in all its bearings, and even while bantering 

each other upon it. Full and free discussion, under only such restraints as impose themselves upon 

the disputes of gentlemen and of friends, is all that is needed to assure a speedy, a peaceable, and a 

satisfactory solution of the international question. The British authors have contributed nothing 

directly to such a discussion, for they have abstained from entering at all upon the merits of the 

controversy. But indirectly they have made a contribution to it of the utmost possible value by 

giving an example, equally wholesome on both sides of the ocean, of the tone and temper, of the 

respect and good will, with which such a discussion should be conducted. A controversy conducted 

in such a spirit cannot but come to a just and a peaceful conclusion. 


- 218 - 

No Need of Hysterics 

From The San Francisco Chronicle, (Rep.) 

The argument of the President in support of the Monroe doctrine and in reply to the position 

assumed by the British Government in the Venezuelan matter is unanswerable. Americans of all 

shades of political opinion will indorse the special message of the President in that regard. 

There is no occasion for Congress or the country to go into hysterics over the situation. There is 

nothing in the aspect of the affair to warrant any talk about a war between the United States and 

Great Britain over the Venezuelan imbroglio. Neither country desires war, that is to say, an armed 

conflict. 

The situation demands that the United States should remain absolutely firm in the stand which 

has been taken. Let it be understood that the Government will not recede. The United States has 

315

26 – 31 December 1895 

now assumed and will maintain its position among the first nations of the world. As it is, the 

American people are content that the sphere of American influence shall be confined to the 

American Continent, but if the Republic is to have such controversies as the one concerning 

Venezuela on its hands, it may become necessary to enter a wider diplomatic and international field. 


- 219 - 

WAR NOT DEEMED TO BE POSSIBLE 

English Preachers Regard the War Talk in This Country Uncalled For— 

Army Officials Warned as to Their Expressions 

LONDON, Dec. 25.—The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Dean of St. Paul’s, the Dean of 

Westminster, and preachers at Christmas services generally to-day touched upon the Venezuelan 

crisis. They all deplored the idea of a war, expressed the belief that such an outcome of the 

controversy was impossible, and enlarged upon “peace and good will.” References to sympathetic 

feeling with the Armenians were also general. 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 25.—Certain army officers who have in recent interviews in the 

newspapers been quoted in discussion of the possibilities of war with England, and as outlining their 

ideas of what should be done in such event, are said to have received personal letters from Secretary 

of War Lamont severely deprecating such talk. 

Expressions from such sources, he says, are not only given undue significance, but they are also 

injurious to the good reputation of the discipline of the army and harmful to the country in 

contributing to an unwarranted apprehension. 


- 220 - 

THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE 

It Continues Cordially to Support the President’s Stand 

NO ABATEMENT IN THE LOYAL ACCLAIM 

The Feeling Still Widespread that the Administration’s Course 

Is the Only Proper One for to Pursue 

From The Christian Intelligencer 

We have not the opportunity to-day to present more fully highly probable facts and some 

considerations concerning the Venezuelan affairs which are the subject of discussion between our 

Government and that of Great Britain. However, the position firmly taken by President Cleveland in 

his message and Secretary Olney in his dispatches deserves, as it has received, the hearty support of 

316


the Nation. The evils or war, as some of us distinctly remember, are unspeakably grievous and 

afflictive. All honorable means should be used to the utmost to prevent war. The people of the 

United States love peace, as is evident from the smallness of our army, the comparative fewness of 

our ships of war, and the unfortified condition at our coasts. The proposition of the President to 

appoint a commission to ascertain whether Venezuela has a clear title to the territory which Great 

Britain not only claims, but has already occupied, in other words, to ascertain whether the Monroe 

doctrine applies to this case, is eminently wise and just. 

That a competent commission and one which will receive the confidence of the Nation will be 

selected is certain. Until the report of such a body is made it becomes us to avoid altogether all 

irritating or offensive words and deeds. Nothing should be allowed to carry us into precipitate or 

intemperate action. Let us wait patiently to learn the right, and than perform it courageously and 

with steadfastness. The spirit of our National Administration in this serious business deserves our 

confidence. There need be no fear that the firm maintenance of its position will result in war. Let us 

go about our ordinary avocations in our ordinary temper, and give no heed to the irritating and 

abusive terms poured upon us by the journals of Great Britain. Above all let us entreat our God and 

the God of our fathers to endow us with the wisdom, righteousness, and mercy we need in this 

hour. 


- 221 - 

The Country Not Panic-Stricken 

From The Chicago Inter Ocean (Rep.) 

Possibly the time is near at band to realize the dream of “a parliament of nations and federation 

of the world.” But however that all may be, the duty of the American people is to rally to the 

defense of the great doctrine that no European power shall encroach upon the territorial rights of 

any American power, however strong may be the aggressor and weak the victim. England will be 

more likely to arbitrate of convinced that the United States is in downright earnest. Indeed, the 

English people need more than anything else just now to be convinced that our Government is in 

earnest. 

Their first impression seemed to have been that the President was playing politics. They did not 

think mach of it When a Republican Congress sustained him, they took it as an affront, a sacrificed a 

good many of our bonds in the fatuous hope to cause a revolution of public opinion. That ruse—for 

ruse it was—succeeded in frightening the speculative market, but the country, as a whole, is 

unmoved. There is reason to call the creation of a boundary commission a step toward war. It is 

rather a long step toward what ought to prove a peaceable solution of the whole problem. 


317

26 – 31 December 1895 

- 222 - 

Not Against the English People 

From The San Francisco Post, (Ind. Rep.) 

The burst of patriotism which has followed the transmission of President Cleveland’s 

Venezuelan message to Congress is not difficult of analysis. Nor does the fact that political lines 

seem for the moment to have been obliterated complicate the problem. 

There is no feeling in the United States against the English people. On the contrary, we are 

bound to them by ties of relationship which cannot be easily broken. But that Americans generally 

think it is about time to put an end to Great Britain’s aggressions on this side of the ocean is 

sufficiently apparent from the support President Cleveland is now receiving. 


- 223 - 

WHY DOES SHE REFUSE ARBITRATION? 

Interesting Extracts from Public Documents Pertinent to 

Great Britain’s Present Attitude 

Resolution of the House of Commons, July 16, 1893 

Resolved, That this Rouse has learnt with satisfaction that both Houses of the United States 

Congress have, by resolution, requested the President to invite, from time to time, as fit occasions 

may arise, negotiations with any Government with which the United States have, or may have, 

diplomatic relations, to the end that any differences or disputes arising between the two 

Governments which cannot be adjusted by diplomatic agency may be referred to arbitration and 

peaceably adjusted by such means, and that this House, cordially sympathizing with the purpose in 

view, expresses the hope that Her Majesty’s Government will lend their ready co-operation to the 

Government of the United States upon the basis of the foregoing resolution. 


- 224 - 

ATTITUDE OF LOYAL MEN 

The President’s Firm Position Sustained by All Patriots 

No Other Course than His Would Comport with the Honor 

and Self-respect of the American People 

318


From The Washington Post, (Ind.) 

It is difficult to understand the blind persistency with which British newspapers and public men 

keep their eyes closed to the true condition of public sentiment in this country. Because a few alien 

editors have condemned the President’s course, a few school teachers have argued against his 

interpretation of the Monroe doctrine, and a few clergymen have protested in the name of peace, 

English opinion has suddenly taken up the hypothesis of a great popular revulsion of feeling, and 

looks with confidence to an immediate change of attitude on the part of this Government. 

Nothing could be more fatuous and foolish. Nothing is further from the thoughts of the 

President or the plans of Congress than the very slightest modification of the position that has been 

assumed by Mr. Cleveland. The American people have hailed the announcement of that position 

with an approval so fervent, so enthusiastic, and so harmonious that for the moment party 

differences have been forgotten and party lines obliterated. 

Only the most infinitesimal and insignificant fraction of our population so much as dreams of 

receding one single step, of changing or retracting anything. The first wild clamor has subsided. The 

country no longer seethes and froths. But instead there has come to us a quiet, earnest, deep-seated 

purpose, against which it will behoove no nation on thin globe to strike. 

Let no one delude himself with the vain and foolish thought that we have wavered. What the 

President has said upon the Venezuelan question, ninety-nine-hundredths of the able-bodied men 

over whom he rules have echoed from the bottom of their patriot hearts. 


- 225 - 

AN ALLEGED PRIVATE DISPATCH 

Reported in London that Mr. Olney Has Sent a Message to Salisbury 

LONDON, Dec. 26.—The Daily News to-morrow, commenting on the report that Secretary of 

State Olney has forwarded a private dispatch to Lord Salisbury, will say: 

There is nothing incredible or surprising in such an announcement On the contrary, it would he highly 

honorable to him. There is no reason to believe that, in pushing the Monroe doctrine, Secretary Olney had any 

design of insulting or annoying England. 

The paper discredits the various far-fetched explanations of President Cleveland’s policy, and 

says be meant no harm by his message to Congress. Whatever mischief he did, he has endeavored 

conscientiously and laboriously to undo. 

Ex-Senator Warner Miller, in speaking of the Venezuelan incident yesterday, said that war was 

out of the question. “The House and the Senate have the prerogative alone to declare war, and no 

President can rob them of it. President Cleveland has tried to do so. Of course, the House and the 

Senate passed the commission bill, not desiring to appear unpatriotic. But as these two branches of 

Congress have to vote to furnish the sinews of war in the shape of appropriations, it is nothing but 

right that they should have the power to declare war. President Cleveland’s administration has 

319

26 – 31 December 1895 

placed the country in a deep financial hole, and it only remains for a Republican Congress to try to 

get it out.” 

Hopes for Peaceful Relations 

The Chamber of Commerce yesterday received the following cablegram from the Edinburgh 

Chamber of Commerce: 

EDINGBURGH, Dec. 26, 1895. 

To Chamber of Commerce, New-York: 

Edinburgh Chamber express earnest desire that present difficulty may end in continuance of peaceful relations 

between both countries so closely allied by kindred language and mutual interests. 

THOMAS CLARK, Baronet, President. 


- 226 - 

A CANADIAN ALARMIST 

Editor of a Toronto Paper Fears an Invasion of the Dominion 

TORONTO, Dec. 26.—A local paper this morning printed the following: 

“The United States Jingoes are in retreat, but any day may see a panic followed by great social 

disturbances, and then an irrepressible rabble of adventurers take the road to invade Canada. They 

have done it before. There is, so a good authority says, 1,000,000 men without work, desperate as to 

the future, and with nothing to lose, who could easily be got to join in such an invasion. There are 

also a host of ‘Generals’ and ‘Colonels’ of more or less war experience, and, well versed in the 

vocabulary of brag, to take the command. We say in all seriousness, that we are liable to such an 

invasion any day. It is therefore the duty of our Government to take some measure of defense, and 

to quietly, but vigorously, see what shape we are in for resisting such attack.” 

OTTAWA. Ontario, Dec. 26.—The Government has decided to establish at once a school of 

military instruction in Montreal. Several influential delegations waited upon the authorities and urged 

this course. 


- 227 - 

AMERICAN REPUBLICS SYMPATHIZE 

Spanish Southern Governments Would Assist the United States 

in the Event of War with Great Britain 

320


VIENNA, Dec.26.—The Paris correspondent of the Neues Journal sends to his paper a report of 

an interview with General Guzman Blanco of Venezuela, who is now In Paris, in which that 

gentleman says that the integrity of Venezuela is a vital question to all America. If England is 

allowed to dominate the Orinoco region, Gen. Blanco declares, she will shortly assume control of 

the regions of the Amazon and La Plata. If she should begin war against Venezuela, by the 

establishment of a blockade of the latter’s ports, all of the American republics would respond by 

closing their ports against English commerce. Gen. Blanco expressed the belief that in the event of 

war between England and the United States an entente would be established between the latter 

country and Russia, and that Russia would attack Great Britain’s Indian possessions at the moment 

that England attacked the United States. 


- 228 - 

COMMISSION NOT SELECTED 

The President In No Haste to Appoint the Investigators of the Venezuelan Boundary 

WASHINGTON. Dec. 26.—Despite the may rumors concerning the composition of the 

Venezuelan Commission, the president has not yet decided whom he will appoint. He, of course, 

considered some of the names which have been mentioned in the last few days, but his mind is not 

made up. He dispatched a letter to ex-Senator George F. Edmunds of Vermont two days ago, 

asking, it is assumed, whether Mr. Edmunds would accept an appointment as a member of the 

commission. Mr. Edmunds’s reply has not been indicated by the President. It is the policy of Mr. 

Cleveland to ascertain beforehand whether any of the men he deems eligible for appointment would 

be willing to serve, and it is possible that some of the men with whom he has communicated may be 

disappointed if they have signified their willingness to accept. 

It is taken for granted, in the absence of definite information concerning the President’s plans, 

that he will not care to have a large commission. It follows that he is anxious to secure the very best 

material obtainable. It is not probable that the Commissioners will be named before Saturday. 

The improvement in the tone of English opinion is regarded at the White House as due in large 

measure to the President’s delay. If this delay is supplemented by the appointment of a commission 

composed of men with more than a National reputation, the British view, it is believed, will be 

further revised. 

Edward J. Phelps of Vermont, ex-Minister to England, one of the gentlemen who may serve on 

the commission to report on the Venezuelan question, was visited by a reporter for The New-York 

Times last evening at the Clarendon Hotel. 

Mr. Phelps said he had received no communication, official or other, that he was to be asked to 

serve on the Venezuelan Commission. He declined to discuss the matter. 

CHICAGO, Dec. 26.—At the offices of Isham, Lincoln & Beale this morning little credence 

was given to the report that Robert Todd Lincoln would be appointed a member of the Venezuelan 

Commission. Mr. Lincoln’s partners said there probably was no truth in the report. Mr. Lincoln has 

been in Philadelphia since Tuesday. 

321

26 – 31 December 1895 


- 229 - 

REPORT OF A QUADRUPLE ALLIANCE 

Salisbury Said to be Negotiating for Support on the Continent 

LONDON. Dec. 26.—The Daily News will publish to-morrow a dispatch from Vienna stating 

that Lord Salisbury, the British Prime Minister, is negotiating with France and Holland with view to 

adopting common action against the policy of President Cleveland. 

Spain, the dispatch states, already has indicated her agreement with Great Britain on the 

question. 

It is believed, the correspondent states, that Great Britain, France, Holland, and Spain will form 

a quadruple alliance to protect their American possessions against the United States. 


- 230 - 

PRESIDENT’S COURSE WAS RIGHT 

England Will Now Learn About Monroe Doctrine, Rev. Mr. Darlinton Says 

The Rev. Dr. J. H. Darlinton, rector of Christ Episcopal Church, Bedford Avenue and Clymer 

Street, Brooklyn, has not made any reference to the Venezuelan trouble from his pulpit, but 

yesterday, in an interview, he said: 

Such topics are not to be brought into the pulpit on Sunday. The Sunday services of the Church 

should not be secularized. They are for the preaching of the Gospel. The less secular topics of any 

kind brought into the pulpit the better. But I am very glad to give a reporter, or any one else, my 

views on this subject on a week day. 

My idea is that things have happened just right. I am very glad indeed that the President spoke as 

he did, and that the two houses of Congress acted as they did. The mind of the masses of the people 

in England and on the Continent of Europe is in a misty condition about America and American 

affairs anyway. Probably, while the statesmen knew there was such a man as President Monroe, the 

majority of the people, not reading the newspapers to the extent that they do in this country, where 

even the laboring man buys his newspaper on his way to work, and when the best papers in England 

devote almost no space whatever to American news, giving, in fact, larger accounts of doings in 

Australia than in the United States and three times as much to the affairs of Canada as to this 

country, it is well they should learn that there is a Monroe doctrine and just what it is. 

The pronounced stand taken by the President and houses of Congress will make the Monroe 

doctrine a subject of discussion in every country and city chophouse, on the street corners and by 

the firesides; and, while there will be some Englishmen who will be crazy for war and who believe 

322


that one Englishman is as good as from ten to twenty men of any other nation in battle, the majority 

of the thinking people of England will readily determine that there must to no war for such a trifling 

cause, and mercantile England will see that her immense money interests in this country are not to 

be put in peril by any such war. 

The shipping interests of England alone, which to-day are greater than all the rest of the world, 

probably, would be utterly ruined should such a war occur. Now, as Gladstone says, all that needs to 

be applied to the situation is common sense—to go slow and not irritate Great Britain by any 

unnecessary warlike demonstration. We have taken the right stand in demanding arbitration. If we 

simply stand firm, in a few months the whole matter will be settled peaceably and without a thought 

of war. 

The only danger lies in the possibility that the hot-headed Venezuelans may commit some 

untoward act and so force retaliation by the British fleet. But, even if that occurs, it is not necessary 

for the United States immediately to step in. The two greatest Christian nations of the world will 

look long at the dispute before they engage in a war which will cost hundreds of thousands of lives 

and hundreds at millions of property. 


- 231 - 

IS A MESSAGE OF PEACE 

The President’s Venezuelan Utterance Not a Signal for War 

MR. CLEVELAND’S POSITION APPROVED 

Ex-Congressman Williams of the Opinion that the Dignity of 

the Country Has Been Fully Maintained 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 26.—Ex-Representative George Fred Williams of Boston, who is 

spending the holiday season in Washington, heartily approves of the President’s course in relation to 

the Venezuela boundary question. Mr. Williams, like all true Americans, takes the ground that the 

Monroe doctrine should be rigidly inforced. While applauding the President’s stand in behalf at this 

doctrine Mr. Williams does not believe that there will be a war between the United States and Great 

Britain. 

“I agree that this Venezuelan question should be settled from the standpoint of peace,” said Mr. 

Williams to a correspondent of The New-York Times, “and that if the American public has any 

distinctive function to perform in modern civilization it is to prevent war and maintain peace and a 

brotherhood of men so far as the American continents are concerned.” 

He continued: 

I understand this to be the entire spirit and purpose of the Monroe doctrine, as announced 

by President Monroe in his annual message of Dec. 2, 1823. The primary declaration of that 

message is that America should not become involved in the policy which European nations may 

choose to adopt in maintaining their balance of power among themselves. The Monroe doctrine, 

323

26 – 31 December 1895 

therefore, in the first instance, pledges the United States Government to the policy of declining 

any intervention by force of any countries beyond the American continents. 

Since the declaration of the Monroe doctrine the United States have fulfilled their pledges in 

this regard and their purpose has been the maintenance of peace upon the American continents. 

On the other hand they attempt to secure the domestic peace of the American States by 

forbidding the European nations from “any attempt on their part to extend their system to any 

portion of the hemisphere” and treating such an attempt “as dangerous to our peace and safety.” 

The attempt to extend European systems is further defined by the declaration that ‘we could not 

view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, (namely, any of the American States,) 

or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than 

as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. 

The purpose of this doctrine was, I believe, fully foreshadowed in the letter of Thomas 

Jefferson, written in 1820, in which, referring to the Minister to Brazil, he says: 

I hope he sees and will promote in his new situation the advantages of a cordial fraternization among all the 

American nations and the importance of their coalescing in an American system and policy totally independent 

of and unconnected with that of Europe. The day is not distant when we may formally acquire a meridian of 

partition through the ocean which separates the two hemispheres, on the hither side of which no European gun 

shall ever be heard or an American on the other. . . I hope no American will ever lose sight of the essential 

policy of interdicting in the seas and territories of both Americas the ferocious and sanguinary contests of 

Europe. I wish to see this coalition begun. 

I think the words of Jefferson are even more fundamental and important to the peace of our 

continent than when they were uttered. Every true American must regard, as Jefferson did, that 

the sound of a European gun on our side of the ocean as a menace to our peace, and that, on the 

other hand, our intervention in the affairs of Europe, Asia, and Africa, would be an equally 

unfitting solution of the problem which interests our continents. It seems to me that the whole 

subject should be viewed from this standpoint, and that war in nowise should be considered 

except for the great purpose of maintaining the peace of our continents. This doctrine, called the 

Monroe doctrine, has never been abandoned by this Government, and, in my judgment, never 

should be. It deserves a place in international law because it absolutely prevents the interference 

of America with Europe in consideration of Europe’s consent to abstain from intervention in 

American affairs. 

Whatever may be the views of our citizens as to the caution or temperance of President 

Cleveland’s message, it is clear that his purpose has been to defend the peace of the American 

continents against the threat of England to by force insist upon its own claims to take possession 

of American soil. If the Monroe doctrine is still the true American doctrine, it was President 

Cleveland’s duty to insist upon it, and had he not done so, according to his judgment, the whole 

policy would have been placed in danger of invasion. We must judge the language of diplomacy 

according to its real purport, and not according to its well-chosen phrases, and it becomes every 

true American citizen who ventures to speak upon this subject to inquire who has used the 

actual language of war. 

It seems to me that it is not President Cleveland, but Lord Salisbury, who at first declared 

that force and not justice shall decide the points in dispute in this case. To those who deprecate 

war it should be suggested that Lord Salisbury was the first to decline a peaceful solution. Lord 

Salisbury’s position to expressed in the following words: 

324


If, as time has gone on, the concessions thus offered diminish in extent and have now been withdrawn, this 

has been a necessary consequence of a gradual spread over the country of British settlements which her 

Majesty’s Government cannot, in justice to the inhabitants, offer to surrender to foreign rule. 

In other words, Lord Salisbury declares that wherever Englishmen choose to settle on 

American soil, England will forcibly maintain their rights to English possession and English rule, 

and that the peaceful methods of arbitration shall not interfere. In other words, wherever 

Englishmen choose to settle disputed territory. England will defend her claim to title, just or 

unjust. Now, it seems to me that the stand point from which every patriotic American should 

view the Presidents message is this: That upon the diplomatic correspondence and such 

information as has so far come to the Department of State, the President does not view the 

English claim as a legitimate boundary dispute, but as a case at theft of territory by England from 

an independent American State. 

“While I would not maintain that the American people should sustain their President in any 

claim he may make, right or wrong, I do think that he should assume until further evidence is 

offered, that England’s claim to the territory in question is so unfounded that it practically 

amounts to what President Monroe defined as “interposition by a European power for the 

purpose of oppressing an American republic.” 

The mere claim of title to territory will not change robbery into right, and from the attitude 

and vigorous words of President Cleveland the American citizen should assume that the 

President considers the English demand for territory as baseless and unjust. In his message he 

says: 

If a European power, by the extension of its boundaries, takes possession or the territory of one of our 

neighboring republics against its will and in derogation of its rights, it is difficult to see why, to that extent, such 

European power does not thereby attempt to extend its system of government to that portion of this continent 

which is thus taken. 

As I understand it, President Cleveland’s attitude is this: He regards Lord Salisbury’s refusal 

to arbitrate as a declaration of purpose on the part of England to occupy by force as much of the 

disputed territory as it chooses to claim, and to deny the demand of this Government that the 

dispute be settled by peaceful arbitration, and in calling for a commission to fairly investigate the 

dispute. President Cleveland proposes to satisfy the people or this country and the whole world, 

winch makes and unmakes international law, whether England is attempting to rob an American 

Government of its territory, or is merely asserting just and well-founded claims. It does not lie 

with patriotic Americans at this time to criticise of the President of the United States for 

attempting, through a just and impartial tribunal, to settle peacefully a question which England 

proposes to decide by force. It is not President Cleveland who is appealing to force, but 

England, which declines the tribunal of peace. 

The commission proposed by President Cleveland does not mean war, but peace. It is an 

assertion of peaceful methods against the defiant claim of Great Britain that it will forcibly 

occupy American territory without impartial judgment, and merely because English settlers have 

chosen to take possession of the land. We may purchase peace at too high a price. Once allow 

England to occupy by force whatever American land it chooses to claim, and the Monroe 

doctrine no longer exists. Any claim of title, whether by disputed boundaries, original grants, or 

conquest, must be submitted to by the United States against any European power merely 

325

26 – 31 December 1895 

because we abandon the doctrine that American territory shall be independent of European 

control, except so far as it was colonized when President Monroe declared his doctrine. 

It seems to me that Lord Salisbury’s argument that the conditions which existed in 1823 are 

no longer effective is wrong, for the Monroe doctrine applies with much greater force than it did 

seventy years ago. The purposes, policy, and interests of the European States have been very 

dearly illustrated in recent years. They have undertaken to control the Government of Egypt and 

of Turkey, and have even divided up the African continent by virtue simply at their power over 

helpless countries. The question here involved is whether they may, by a like exercise of arbitrary 

power, possess themselves of American territory. Every year brings distant countries nearer 

together, and no one knows how soon railroads between the American continents may make 

Venezuela and Brazil our neighbors, and furnish facilities for European States to transport arms 

from those sections to our southern borders If, as is alleged by some, England’s purpose is to 

control the commerce of North and South America by obtaining possession and control of the 

mouth of the Orinoco River, it is of fundamental importance to our peace that this shall not be 

done unjustly or by force. 

If England would arbitrate its claim, then the methods of peace would be vindicated. If the 

United States allows England to defy the tribunal of peace and take possession of American 

territory by force, it cannot later regain its position as the defender of the autonomy of the 

existing States of the American continents. I cannot understand how President Cleveland can be 

charged with precipitating war when he proposes to appoint a just tribunal to satisfy the people 

of the United States and of the world as to the justice of England’s demands, and thus insist 

upon a peaceful solution where Lord Salisbury insists upon the savage tribunal of force. While 

President Cleveland might have chosen less forcible words with which to enforce the American 

doctrine of the peaceful solution of questions affecting the American continents, I should rather 

treat any excess in statement as an indignant protest against the policy of England to acquire 

territory by force that the expression or a purpose on the part of the United States to use force 

in the defense of this territory. 

The appointment of the commission is a distinct repudiation of the doctrine of force. It is an 

appeal to the sense of justice of the world; it is a vigorous insistence that armed Europe shall not 

introduce warlike methods to disturb American peace. Instead of declaring war, the President 

treats Lord Salisbury’s refusal to arbitrate as an insistence upon forcible measures and proposes 

to have the case tried peaceably whether England wishes it or not, and to ask the support of the 

peace-loving and war-hating world in resisting what he deems to be the oppression of a feeble 

American State by a powerfully armed European invader. This is the American doctrine that was 

good in 1823, is better now, in 1895, and will be a boon to mankind in the next century. 

I am second to no man in deprecating force in the settlement of international disputes. It is 

barbarous, unchristian, and to be hated by every just and merciful man, but the nation which 

defies the tribunal of peace is the nation which must bear the guilt of bloodshed, and not the 

nation that insists upon arbitration as the civilized, Christian; and lawful method of settling 

disputed international questions. There is no fear of war between the United States, and, in my 

judgment, if the people of this country will stand by the President in this emergency, England 

and all other nations will be taught a lesson which may well close this century that the American 

continent must be governed by law and not by the will of the strongest. 


326


- 232 - 

COMMISSION NOT YET SELECTED 

The President Probably Will Not Name the Men to Investigate 

the Venezuela Boundary Dispute Until Monday 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 27.—There have been no developments to-day in connection with the 

Venezuelan Commission appointments. The President still is engaged in the task at selecting a body 

of men whose names will be a guaranty to the world that the boundary question is to be examined 

with due regard to the responsibility attaching to the decision that is to be reached. 

It is probable all the names which have been suggested in the last week have occurred to the 

President, and equally is it certain that some of the men whose qualifications have been urged do not 

approach the high standard the President has set. 

The necessary delay involved in the creation of the commission in having a wholesome effect, 

not only in the United States, but in England, and no harm will be done to American interests if the 

commission be not named before next week. It requires time to fix upon a dozen or more men who 

would make acceptable Commissioners, to ascertain whether they would accept appointment, and 

finally to decide upon the three or five, as the case may be, to whom the delicate task shall be 

committed. 

It comes from high authority to-night that the Commissioners may not be named before 

Monday. The President has not yet decided whether the commission shall have more or fewer than 

three members. 

He may be governed in determining the matter by a desire to appoint men regarded as desirable, 

after three persons have been chosen, but it is intimated that he relies upon more rapid work by a 

small commission than would be obtained from a larger one. 


- 233 - 

GREAT BRITAIN TO WAIT 

Will Give Away No More Property of Venezuela at Present 

DELAY CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES 

St. James’s Gazette Story Denied—Excitement Over War Talk 

Dying Out—People Did Not Grasp the Question 

By The United Press 

LONDON, Dec. 28.—The St. James’s Gazette, which was the first newspaper to print the 

ultimatum of Great Britain to Venezuela, Oct. 19, published to-day a statement that initial steps have 

been taken in British Guiana to form a chartered company, whose operations shall lie between the 

Essequibo and the Schomburgk line. The Gazette proceeds to say that the origin of this important 

political development is to be found in a dispatch which Mr. Chamberlain, Colonial Secretary, wrote 

in September, sketching the new policy of the Imperial Government as regarded interior affairs, and 

327

26 – 31 December 1895 

inquiring if local capitalists were prepared to take up a large concession in the Northwest and 

develop its mineral and other resources, at the same time hinting that, if not, there were people in 

the United Kingdom who were willing to do so. 

The Gazette then goes on to print a report of an alleged meeting held in British Guiana for the 

purpose of forming a chartered company to take up Mr. Chamberlain’s offer. The paper, which 

claims to know the policy of the Colonial Office, says it is certain that Great Britain will not consent 

to leave to arbitration the entire territory claimed by Venezuela. 

With reference to the Venezuelan situation it can be said that the British Guiana Chartered 

Company, over which The St. James’s Gazette is trying to get up a sensation, has not been chartered, 

nor is a charter likely to be given until everything is amicably arranged between London and 

Washington. 

The dispatch of Joseph Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the Colonies, offering to make 

concessions within the Schomburgk line, was written obviously to strengthen the British case against 

the contentions advanced by Mr. Olney, the American Secretary of State. 

An English syndicate, relying on Mr. Chamberlain’s suggestions, made proposals to the Guiana 

Government, asking for the grant of huge tracts of land between the Essequibo and the 

Schomburgk frontier. The syndicate asked too much and met with a refusal. A meeting of colonial 

residents held in Georgetown, chiefly representative of the planter interest, formed a board which 

was authorized to petition the Government for a limited concession. All this happened prior to the 

sending to Congress of President Cleveland’s message anent the boundary dispute. The St. James’s 

Gazette admits that, though there is no reason why Mr. Chamberlain should delay his decision in the 

matter of the concession out of consideration for the feelings of Venezuela, he will probably hold 

the matter in abeyance, in view of the tension between Great Britain and the United States. 

No Excitement Over Venezuela 

Notwithstanding the condition of excitement under which the country was alleged to be laboring 

owing to the attitude of the United Status on the Venezuelan dispute, which excitement, by the way, 

was only manifested by the newspapers and not by the people, Prime Minister Salisbury spent the 

whole week quietly at his residence, Hatfield House with his family and a few guests. Two 

messengers went daily between Hatfield House and the Foreign Office carrying dispatches. Those 

whose business, even during the holiday period, obliged them to visit the Foreign Office, found the 

atmosphere motionless and not a trace or the recent supposed excitement. 

Few communications have been received during the week from any quarter, and most of those 

that were received were from Constantinople. No communication of importance was received from 

Washington. If the statement cabled here is correct that Secretary or State Olney has informed Sir 

Julian Pauncefote, the British Ambassador, that the members of the Venezuelan commission have 

been nominated by President Cleveland, the fact has not yet been officially communicated to the 

Foreign Office. 

It is understood here that no difficulty will be placed in the way of the commission getting at all 

the sources of inquiry at the disposal of the Foreign Office. If the documents in its possession are 

desired, duly certified copies of the same will be transmitted to Washington. If the commissioners 

carry their inquiries into British Guiana, they will obtain all facilities for the pursuit of their 

investigations, though it is the opinion of the authorities here that the work of an actual frontier 

328


inspection will be too difficult a task for any Commissioners that President Cleveland is likely to 

appoint, a task that neither Mr. Phelps nor Mr. Lincoln would undertake. 

Lord Salisbury, in appointing Sir Augustus Hemming to the Governorship of British Guiana in 

succession to Sir Charles Cameron Lees, had in view Sir Augustus’s services in delimiting British and 

French territories in West Africa. The nomination at Sir Augustus was due to Joseph Chamberlain, 

Secretary of State for the Colonies, who persuaded Lord Salisbury to make an unprecedented 

departure from official custom in raising Sir Augustus from a chief clerkship in the Colonial Office 

to a Colonial Governorship. Sir Augustus has studied the Venezuelan frontier question. He coached 

Mr. Chamberlain on the subject, and probably supplied Lord Salisbury with material information. 

War Talk Dying Out 

Now that the question of the crisis has relaxed, people are wondering what all the furor was 

about. Papers like The Speaker, which last week breathed a warlike defiance to the United States, 

indulge this week in queer self-congratulations on the good sense and good feeling shown by the 

English under most unexpected and extraordinary provocation in “keeping their temper and 

studiously refraining from anything like retaliation upon the American jingoes.” The truth of the 

matter is that the jingo papers here, notably the Liberal press, tried to fan popular feeling into 

flames. They failed chiefly because the mass of the people could not understand what the cause of 

offense was that had been offered or was to be received from Washington. The war talk on the part 

of some of the newspapers is not quite over. The agricultural papers discuss the probable effects of 

a war between the two countries. 

The Mark Lane Express holds that, should a war occur, and should it be a brief one, the only 

effect on the grain trade would be increased prices, and not a shortness of the supply. Russia and 

India, it says, are now effective sources for the supply at any home deficiency. 

Vanity Fair publishes a wild article, in which it says that a war would be an excellent thing. If 

England should make the United States climb down, it would put England on a pinnacle that she 

has never yet attained, and much other matter of the same calibre. This paper is a harmless society 

organ, and reflects the prejudice of only a small circle which is in no way noted for its grasp of 

current events outside of gossip and society functions. 


- 234 - 

The Commission a Peace Measure 

From The Philadelphia Telegraph, (Rep.) 

The proposition to appoint a United States Commission to ascertain, if possible, precisely what 

the relative rights of Venezuela and Great Britain in the disputed boundary matter are, was not only 

not a declaration of war but it was really a peace proposition. The commission will ascertain, if 

possible, which country is right in its contention; and while it is doing that diplomacy will be 

employing its best offices to secure an amicable settlement of the of the matter in dispute. The 

329

26 – 31 December 1895 

commissions may possibly discover that the British demand is valid; for if there were no doubt with 

reference to the boundary line there would be no commission and no inquiry. It is the reasonable 

uncertainty of the situation that makes an investigation desirable. 


- 235 - 

STRONG ANTI-BRITISH SENTIMENT 

Arrivals from Venezuela Tell How the Message Was Received 

Arturo L. Mola and Roberto Mola, Cubans on their way from the United States of Colombia to 

Cuba arrived here yesterday from La Guayra, on the steamship Caracas. They were in Venezuela at 

the time President Cleveland sent his message to Congress. 

They said yesterday that as soon as the full text of the message became known in Venezuela 

everything put on a holiday appearance, and America and Americans were cheered upon all 

occasions. Bonfires were built, fireworks were discharged, and the American flag was flown from 

hundreds of houses. 

They said that the American Consuls were serenaded in all of the cities, and it was generally said 

that all Englishmen would be asked to leave Venezuela, unless their country consented to arbitrate 

the boundary question. The feeling in Venezuela, they stated, was strongly anti-British, and the 

entire sentiment was for this country. 

William L. Russell, Secretary of the American Legation, went from Curaçao to La Guayra on the 

steamship Caracas while she was en route for this port. The Venezuelan Custom House boat went 

out to meet the Caracas flying the American and Venezuelan flags. When her officers discovered 

Mr. Russell on the Caracas they gave him an enthusiastic reception, fired guns in his honor, and took 

him ashore, where he met the officials and soldiers at a reception given in his honor. 


- 236 - 

OPPOSED BRITAIN’S GREED 

Mr. Gresham’s Attitude on the Venezuelan Question 

WOULD HAVE RESISTED AGGRESSION 

Mr. Olney Doing Practically What His Predecessor Would Have Done 

—Claims of the Anglo-Americans Denied 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 28.—Some of the ladylike objectors to the message of the President on 

the Venezuelan question are attempting to support their arguments for the British attitude toward 

Venezuela and the United States by insisting that it Secretary Gresham had lived the management of 

the matter would have been much more careful of British prejudices, and that he never would have 

permitted American feeling to be aroused as Secretary Olney and President Cleveland have stirred it. 

330


The theory of these apologists for England is that Secretary Gresham approved of the British 

aggressions in Venezuela, and would have advised President Cleveland to pursue a course that 

virtually would have justified the retention by Great Britain of its most advanced boundary line in 

Venezuela. It might as well be stated now, as it will appear later, that Secretary Olney has followed 

directly in the lines marked out by his predecessor, that there has been not the slightest departure 

from them, and that if Secretary Gresham had lived until now it is highly probable that it would be 

Secretary Gresham, and not Secretary Olney, who would be exasperating all the pro-British persons 

living in the United States and exciting numbers of ignorant clergymen and laymen to criticism of 

their own Government and praise of the Government with which we have brought an old 

controversy to something like a head. 

As a matter of fact, the Venezuela boundary question is one that has engaged the attention of 

changing Administrations for several years, and the conclusions and arguments of Secretary Olney, 

upon which the President based his message, are founded upon the correspondence in the 

Department of State. Venezuela has been too much occupied with revolutions to calmly dwell upon 

the preservation of her eastern boundary line, and Great Britain has apparently benefited by the preoccupation 

or the Venezuelan mind and the complacency of the United States about the Monroe 

doctrine. 

Until Venezuela was aroused by the discovery that the Schomburgk line had been left to the 

eastward, and that Great Britain had set up a new and more advanced claim, the intent of England 

to defy the Monroe doctrine was not accepted as a reason additional to the one of justice to warrant 

the United States in objecting to further assertion of control over Venezuelan territory. Out of the 

correspondence in the matter, it is probable that Secretary Gresham reached the conclusion that it 

was not so much the desire to hold the swamp that Mr. Depew says is not worth $25,000 as it was 

the intention of England to show its contempt for the American doctrine at non-extension of 

European system or control. This naturally led the Government to decide that if a stop was to be 

put to the absorption of Venezuela, it must begin before that republic was half appropriated by the 

British in Guiana. 

Secretary Gresham handed dawn to Secretary Olney the correspondence of the State 

Department and the programme of the Administration just as t had been made out prior to his 

death. The present Secretary will show, when he comes to publish the correspondence for the year 

1895, that in demanding from Spain the prompt settlement at the Mora indemnity he simply carried 

out the plan arranged by Secretary Gresham, who had adhered to the policy of Blaine, 

Frelinghuysen, Fish, and the Presidents under whom those Secretaries of State served, in Insisting 

that Spain should do all that she had offered and agreed to do, but which she had evaded doing 

until, with a Cuban war on her hands, she feared that the United States might insist upon collecting 

the indemnity in Havana while the insurrection was going on at the east end of the island. 

There has been until recently a hope in the Department of State that England would 

demonstrate its entire reliance upon the possibility of sustaining its Venezuelan claims by ample 

proofs, and that it would resort to arbitration as an opportunity by which it could lose nothing in the 

hands of impartial judges. Whether the land be worthless, as it is said to be by Mr. Depew’s British 

friends, or valuable, as the effort of the British to hold it leads the public to believe, the decision as 

to the boundary line, if adverse, would not greatly impair the prestige of the British Empire and a 

decision restoring to Venezuela a portion of territory claimed by Great Britain would unquestionably 

do much to modify the world’s opinion that England is not governed by considerations of justice 

when she is dealing with nations regarded as easier to crush than to conciliate. 

331

26 – 31 December 1895 

British-Americans will not derive any real comfort from the attempt to prove that the cause of 

Great Britain would have been in more sympathetic hands if Gresham had lived than it has been 

since his death. He had a strong conviction that the British aggressions in Venezuela were not only a 

glaring injustice to Venezuela, but also gave an occasion, possibly sought, of intimidating the United 

States. 

Secretary Olney has apparently considered Mr. Gresham’s views as sound and worthy of 

adoption as correctly maintaining the traditional policy of the United States since Monroe. The 

intent, more than the extent of the appropriation of Venezuela is the thing by which Great Britain 

must be judged. The advancement of the boundary line from the east toward the west at different 

times during the last half century has had some pretended property and commercial justifications. 

The concern of the United States has not been about the loss to Venezuela—it has been a 

reasonable jealousy lest the real purpose of the successive seizures of territory were the assertion of a 

policy antagonistic to our own and intended to illustrate our disposition to allow the Monroe 

doctrine to lapse. 


- 237 - 

THE PRESIDENT UPHELD 

Washington Unanimously Sustains the Venezuelan Message 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 28.—Never since the times of the war of the rebellion has there been 

manifested so great a feeling of unanimity about any National question as has been displayed here 

on the President’s assertion of the American doctrine regarding the extension by Great Britain of its 

boundaries or its power, or both, in Venezuela. Old newspaper correspondents have made this 

comparison, and they admit that there was greater division of opinion about the rebellion than there 

has been about the correctness of the President’s position. For, when the rebellion began, there 

lingered about the city many writers for the Southern press who desired to stay as long in the 

National capital as possible to send news across the lines, and occasionally to be of service to the 

States, whose cause they believed was right. 

There were at first no critics of the President for his Venezuela message. The few newspaper 

exceptions to the general voice of approval encouraged other critics, and gave some of the men who 

had voted for the bill to authorize a commission of inquiry, time and strength to find fault, not 

loudly, but by ingenious qualification and political analysis, But if the thing were to be all done over 

again, and the men who are now criticising the President for having added the two paragraphs at the 

end of his message which have been alluded to as “a menace of war” were to be heard, there are not 

many here who would ask to have those paragraphs omitted. The effect of those lines upon the 

popular mind has been made. Possibly some of those who have discussed the message and the 

papers that accompanied it did not really know just what the controversy was all about. But 

everybody who is at all conversant with the talk of the street and the crowds is sure that the country 

has obtained the impression that there was an inclination on the part of Great Britain to crowd us, 

and that the President had given our British uncle a nudge that could be taken to mean nothing less 

than a warning to “keep off.” 

332


There will he some speech making on the Monroe doctrine before the Winter is ended, and one 

Senator, in whose utterances the public always finds much of interest, will contribute his opinion, 

which will not conflict at all with that of the President, but may put the doctrine in new words. He 

thinks that the investigating commission will sustain his notion that the only interpretation to be put 

upon the doctrine in such a case as that of the British aggression in Venezuela is the one of intent. 

“We cannot,’ says this Senator, “listen to such puerile arguments as that of Dr. Depew, when he says 

that the territory in dispute is a swamp worth less than $25,000. Great Britain would be justified by 

that argument, if it could buy up its stolen territory. Further than that, it might absorb several other 

sections of Venezuela, and other South American States entire, and by and by snap its fingers at the 

United States and ask, ‘Where is your Monroe doctrine?’ The danger is that there is a well-formed 

determination to overturn the doctrine, make it to be a subject for ridicule, and demonstrate, if 

possible, that we did not under stand what we were proposing to do when we enunciated it. By an 

honest and earnest examination into the matter we shall undoubtedly show that the changes of the 

boundary have been made for the purpose of extending the British Empire in spite of our doctrine 

of ‘hands off,’ and that American unwillingness to make a fuss could be depended upon an 

undertaking to carry out a policy so menacing to our traditional policy, if not to our interests.” 


- 238 - 

GUIANA AND NEW-YORK 

The dispute about the boundaries of British Guiana has a particular though indirect interest for 

the inhabitants of this island, since it formed a part of the territory for which New-York was traded 

more than two centuries ago. It is curious that what is now undisputedly Venezuela should have 

been the only part of the mainland of America which was ever seen by Christopher Columbus, a 

little less than four hundred years ago. His conviction that by steering west from the Pillars of 

Hercules he would find the Continent of Asia was part of a geographical notion correct only in its 

basis and its outline and almost necessarily wildly wrong in its detail. He had been so often deceived, 

from his first sight of Watling’s Island, in what he had taken to be indications of a continent that, 

after having rightly conceived Trinidad to be an island and given it the name it carries to this day, he 

assumed the land at the mouth of the Orinoco to be an island also, and named it accordingly. It was 

only after it had been made clear to him that the great river was a river and not an estuary that he 

concluded, from its great volume, that it could flow only from the heart of same body of land far 

too great to be a mere island, even such an island as his own Hispaniola. But to him this was a 

matter of supposition and inference only, which he had no opportunity to verify, and he died 

without any real conception of the changes which his voyages had made in the map of the world. 

It was a century later that Raleigh visited the coast of Guiana and published the famous 

description in which he set down, nothing doubting, the account, which Shakespeare borrowed, of 

“men whose heads do grow beneath their shoulders.” Although the whole northern coast of South 

America was called by him “Guiana,” neither in his voyage of 1595 nor in the voyage seventeen 

years later, which was the occasion of his execution, did he give any foundation, either by settlement 

333

26 – 31 December 1895 

or by discovery, for British claim. There was no British settlement until long after Raleigh’s death. 

The grant of Guiana by Charles II to Lord Willoughby, then Governor of Barbados, in 1664, was 

merely a manifestation of the easy good nature, in giving away things to which his own title was not 

clear, of which the merry monarch made another manifestation the same year in granting to his 

brother, the Duke of York and Albany, the region of which the commercial and the political capital 

still bear the names respectively of these two titles. 

Lord Willoughby was not so fortunate in making good by arms a defective title as was the King’s 

brother. For, whereas New-Amsterdam was actually captured by the British the same year that the 

Duke of York’s patent was issued and held until the close of the war, the Dutch remained 

throughout the masters of all that part of “Guiana” which was not French or Spanish. Fortunately 

for the Duke of York, the peace of Breda, in 1667, was made, not upon the basis of the “status 

quo,” but upon the basis of the “uti possidetis,” and so New Amsterdam remained English and 

Surinam Dutch. To the modern observer it seems that the Dutch must upon this occasion have 

been greatly outwitted and not yet have acquired the sharp practice which was long afterward 

imputed to them by a British statesman: “In matters of commerce, the fault of the Dutch is giving 

too little and asking too much.” 

This is not the way in which the transaction appeared to those who took part in it, either at the 

peace of Breda or in the treaty of Westminster, in 1674, by which the cessions were confirmed. 

Burke, in his “Account of the European Settlements in America,” written about the middle of the 

eighteenth century, says: “At that time this was looked upon by many as a bad exchange, but it now 

appears that we have made an excellent bargain,” and this “appears” much more vividly at the end 

of the nineteenth century. 

Of course, these historical reminiscences have nothing whatever to do directly with the 

boundary dispute. The whole of what is now British and Dutch Guiana was ceded to the Dutch by 

the treaty of Amiens, in 1802, but British Guiana was recaptured by the British the next year and 

formally ceded to them by the Dutch in 1814. It is from this cession, as the diplomatic 

correspondence shows, that the existing British title is derived. But, although the old exchange of 

Guiana for New-Netherlands “has nothing to do with the case,” it should give to New-York 

something of the same interest in its progress with which a sympathetic person who has bought his 

exemption from a conscription follows the fortunes of his substitute. 


- 239 - 

Schomburgk’s Views in 1839 

From The Philadelphia Press 

LANCASTER, Penn., Dec. 28.—There has been forwarded from this city to Secretary of State 

Olney a volume which may have some value in the present Venezuela controversy. This book was 

published in Edinburgh in 1843, and is a treatise on the fishes of Guiana, written by Robert 

Schomburgk, who surveyed the boundary line on which Great Britain now founds her claim to such 

a large share of territory belonging to Venezuela. Prefixed to the book is a memoir of nearly a 

334


hundred pages, including a lengthy account of his operations in Guiana and Venezuela between the 

years 1835 and 1839. On Sept. 20, 1838, Schomburgk and a party of explorers sailed up the Takuta 

River and entered the Mamu. In a village in which they remained several days they were guests of 

the Indians. Continuing his account of the journey. Schomburgk says: 

“At length the column was put in marching order, the coxswain at the head, carrying the British 

union flag, under which they had been marching for the last three ears through hitherto unknown 

parts of Guiana. Now it was to lead them beyond the British boundaries into regions known only to 

the copper-colored Indian; but they were animated with the hope of reaching for the first time from 

this side of the Continent, the point which Baron Humboldt had in 1800, after many difficulties, 

arrive at from the westward—namely, Esmeraldo, on the Orinoco.” 

This shows that, whatever surveys or lines Schomburgk may have made afterward, in 1838 and 

1889, he admitted that that territory was alien to the British. 


- 240 - 

BRITISH GUIANA CLAIMS 

Their Variations Since the Territory Was Acquired 

NO DEFINITE BOUNDARY UNTIL 1843 

Sir Robert H. Schomburgk Gave the English a Liberal Slice 

of Venezuela—Maps of Various Dates 

Immediately following the Peace of Paris, in 1815, which confirmed the right of Great Britain to 

the three provinces in Guiana which she had wrested from the Dutch, there were some enthusiasts 

in England who conjectured that British Guiana comprised nearly all of South America below the 

Orinoco River. 

Sir Andrew Halliday, who visited Guiana, in a book published in 1837, in a glowing description 

of British Guiana, said: 

“The coast line of this rich and important colony may, as I have stated, extend to a little more 

than 200 miles; but its depth or length inland has not so far as I am aware, been as yet determined. 

“One or two travelers do say that they had penetrated so far to the south that from the summit 

of the Cordilleras they could discern the South Atlantic Ocean; and that from said heights the waters 

parted north and south. Hence some have conjectured that this is the southern boundary of British 

Guiana, though its true latitude has neither been ascertained, nor is it at all stated in any work that I 

am aware of.” 

Sir Andrew did not venture to say that from the topmost heights in question there was a good 

view or the south pole and the Fiji Islands. 

One fact is made clear by Sir Andrew Halliday in his book, namely, that Great Britain, up to 

1837, had made no definite claim to boundaries for British Guiana, and had not even attempted to 

lay out boundaries. 

Exactly what Great Britain conquered from the Dutch were the colonies along the Essequibo. 

The contention or Great Britain has been that she is entitled to the whole immense valley of the 

335

26 – 31 December 1895 

Essequibo, and to the entire Essequibo watershed, extending in all directions to the very ridges of 

high mountain ranges, hundreds of miles distant from the colonies which the British arms originally 

took by conquest. 

Sir Andrew Halliday’s statements regarding the haziness of the British Guiana boundary were 

corroborated by Sir Robert H. Schomburgk, in a book published by him in London, in 1840, entitled 

“A Description of British Guiana.” The object of the work was to give an account of whatever related 

to the physical structure, natural productions, and present and future capabilities of the colony of 

British Guiana, including statistical information. 

The whole embraced the results of Schomburgk’s scientific expeditions of discovery in Guiana 

from 1835 to 1839, under the direction of the Geographical Society of London. A map accompanied 

the book. 

In his preface Schomburgk said: “Though the accompanying map is incomplete, many of its 

details resting on information procured from the natives, yet the greater portion has been laid down 

from my own personal observations, and offers a correct view of the facilities which the numerous 

rivers and their tributaries afford for internal navigation, and will show how important it is to the 

colony that its boundaries should be more clearly defined than at present and freed from the 

encroaching claims of the adjacent States, which, if admitted, would deprive British Guiana of the 

greater part of her most valuable territory.” 

Schomburgk’s sketch map of British Guiana gave to the British such a liberal slice of Venezuela 

that it was decided by the British Foreign Office that he was just the right man to lay out a boundary 

line between Venezuela and British Guiana. 

Accordingly, in 1840, he was appointed as Her Majesty’s Commissioner for surveying the 

boundaries of British Guiana. He proceeded to South America and was engaged in that work for 

three years, completing his labors in 1843. They found official expression in a line which has ever 

since been known as the “Schomburgk line.” 

A comparison of the boundary line in Schomburgk’s sketch map, made prior to 1840, with the 

“Schomburgk line” laid down by him as her Majesty’s Commissioner, will show that the two are 

practically identical. When Schomburgk drew his arbitrary line, he set up posts, to indicate British 

dominion, at Point Barima, Amacuro, and other localities. The Venezuelan Government made a 

vigorous protest, and Lord Aberdeen, then English Foreign Secretary, ordered the posts removed. 

This was taken to indicate that England did not contend that she was entitled to all the watershed of 

the Essequibo. 

This is made clear by the fact that neither the Schomburgk line nor Lord Aberdeen’s proposed 

boundary, nor any suggested boundary of England, until within very recently, included the 

watershed of the Cuyuni River, a tributary of the Essequibo. The most extreme claim of England, 

until the present, was for a boundary crossing the Rio Cuyuni at a point east of its junction with the 

Uspania River. 

The fluctuating claims of England are further illustrated by a map published in London in 1842, 

under the superintendence of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. The authorities 

given for the map are Humboldt, Schomburgk, Godazzi, and others. The difference between this 

line and the “Schomburgk line” will be seen on comparing the two. 

The old French geographers did not give British Guiana any territory to speak of west of the 

Essequibo River. The “Dictionaire Géographique Universel,” published in Paris in 1828, stated the area 

of British Guiana to be only 3,120 square leagues. It called British Guiana the smallest of the 

Guianas. 

336


In an old French map in the “Atlas Universel do Géographie,” published in Paris in 1839, the line of 

British Guiana extends parallel, generally speaking, with the Essequibo River, distant only a few 

leagues west thereof. It included only the bottom lands of the Essequibo Valley. 

Most instructive of all maps is that published in The New-York Times Dec. 18, and now 

reproduced, showing the various boundary lines proposed by Great Britain. It will be seen that the 

line of Lord Aberdeen, suggested by him in 1844, gave the Venezuelans a portion of inland territory 

in exchange for a large slice of the coast. 

The Granville line of 1881 claimed still more of the ocean coast, and gave Venezuela no more of 

the interior than had been offered to her by Lord Aberdeen. 

The present British claim has been enlarged so as to take in all of the watershed of the Cuyuni 

River. It was not proposed by Great Britain until the valuable gold mines were discovered at the 

Cuyuni head waters. 

Sir Andrew Halliday, in the work already referred to, states that even as late as his time, fifty 

years after the British had conquered the country, the population was practically confined to the 

centres of the river valleys. 

He says: “As yet a few patches only along the seacoast and on the banks of its three great rivers 

have been subjected to cultivation.” 

Schomburgk himself, in his book “A Description of British Guiana,” made it clear that only a very 

small part of the immense territory claimed from Venezuela by Great Britain was or had ever been 

colonized by the English or even discovered or traversed by them. As long ago as 1837, 

Schomburgk indicated, the claims of Venezuela on the one side and Brazil on the other reduced the 

territory of British Guiana to 12,300 square miles. The Brazilians claimed as far north as the 

Siparunus River. Venezuela then claimed to the month of the Morocco, from there to the 

confluence of the Cuyuni and Mazaruni, along the western bank of the Essequibo to the confluence 

of the River Rupununi. 

According to Schomburgk, the total population of whites in the Essequibo Province in 1829 was 

only 476 men and 183 women. There was still a thinly scattered population of the aborigines. 

Schomburgk’s sketch map of British Guiana shows absolutely not a single English or Dutch 

settlement large or small in the entire country in dispute between Venezuela and Great Britain, save 

only along the banks of the Essequibo. 

He says in his book there were only seven towns or villages in all of British Guiana. None of 

them was west of the Essequibo River. They were Georgetown, on the eastern flank or the 

Demerara; New-Amsterdam, on the Berbice River; Mahaica, on the west bank of the river of that 

name; Mahaicony, on the river of that name; Fredericksburg, on the island Wakenaam, in the month 

of the Essequibo; Williamstown, on the Essequibo, and Catharinesburg, on the same river. 

“The Dutch,” says Schomburgk, “formerly cultivated the banks of the Essequibo 100 miles 

above its embouchure. If we except the three islands at the mouth of the river, cultivation does not 

extend at present five miles beyond its mouth. 

“The same remarks apply to the rich coast land of the rivers Pomeroon and Morocco.” 

The claim sometimes advanced in support of the English that they were entitled at least to the 

country so far as the Essequibo and tributaries were navigable would never have given Great Britain 

a title of the Venezuelan territory which she has claimed. Schornburgk says: “The Rivers Essequibo, 

Demerara, Berbice, and Corentyn may be navigated inland by schooners or steamboats 

unobstructed to a distance of from 50 to 125 miles, where the rapids and cataracts offer the first 

impediment to further advance.” 

337

26 – 31 December 1895 

338


339

26 – 31 December 1895 

340



341

26 – 31 December 1895 

- 241 - 

CALLS SALISBURY A BULLY 

Michael Davitt of Ireland Discusses the Venezuela Question 

ENGLAND, HE SAYS, WILL YIELD 

Not a Possibility of War in His Judgment—He Predicts a 

Peaceful Settlement of the Dispute 

CHICAGO, Dec. 29.—Michael Davitt, the Irish Nationalist, and member of Parliament from 

South Mayo and East Derry, is in this city on his way home from Australia. 

He said to-day that he did not think there was the slightest possibility of war between the United 

States and Great Britain. 

Lord Salisbury,” said Mr. Davitt, “is known in Great Britain and in Ireland as a bully whose 

policy when he has been at the head of the Government has been to try to intimidate little nations 

and powers throughout the world. He has been able to do so with impunity heretofore, but now he 

finds that behind little Venezuela stands America, and he will discover that he will not be allowed to 

carry on the same policy toward this small State in South America that he and other English 

statesmen have carried out toward weak peoples and small Governments in other parts of the world. 

“For myself, I only can repeat that I am glad such a stand has been taken by the United States. It 

was about time, and the upshot of it will be that the reasonable demand made by the President to 

have the whole trouble submitted to arbitration will be accepted by England, and then the seat of 

operations will be transferred from the newspapers to diplomacy. I believe that war is so far away 

that it is outside the realm of probability, because, after all, look at it in this light: The commercial 

relations between this country and Great Britain are so enormous that the people of the United 

States on the one hand and of Great Britain on the other practically would be insane if they 

jeopardized these trade relations on account of a small affair like this in Venezuela—a little 40,000 

square miles of worthless country. 

“This is particularly plain when it is taken into consideration that the President of the United 

States makes so favorable a proposition as to have the whole matter submitted for arbitration.” 


- 242 - 

COMMENDS THE ADMINISTRATION 

Harry Bingham, Leader of the New Hampshire Bar, on the Monroe Doctrine 

At a reunion of the New-Hampshire members of the Grand Army of the Republic, held at 

Littleton, N. H. on Thursday, the principal speaker was Harry Bingharn, the leader of the New- 

Hampshire bar. Mr. Bingham devoted much of his speech to the Venezuelan question, and among 

other things said: 

A gold-bearing region has been discovered in Venezuela, and Great Britain claims it as within 

the boundaries of her dominion. This contention has raised a first-class controversy, which is now in 

342


full blast. Our Government is properly taking the ground that, according to its established policy, 

the gold-bearing region, if within the proper boundaries of Venezuela, cannot be taken from 

Venezuela without its consent, and that Great Britain must not encroach upon the territory of any of 

the countries upon this continent or plant new colonies upon it. Great Britain has also a controversy 

with one of the Central American States in which her real purpose is more obscure. 

Gold having been found in Alaska, it is said that Great Britain, as usual, is about to start a 

controversy, in which she will claim that the newly discovered gold has been found within the limits 

of her dominion. 

England maintains impregnable fortifications at Halifax, Bermuda, Esquimault, and various 

other places on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of America as naval stations, whence she can send on 

a moment’s notice sufficient force to bombard and burn our seaport cities, or like cities of any of 

our sister republics. It is certainly not pleasant for us and for the other American republics to realize 

that these fortifications that darken the coasts of America are stations for the colossal navies of 

Great Britain, and that ironclad ships, armed with all the modern implements of swift destruction, 

may issue from these stations and within twenty-four hours after orders received assail and destroy 

the seaports of America. And it is especially unpleasant and embarrassing for us and our sister 

republics to be compelled to hold debates with Great Britain for the settlement of these constantly 

occurring controversies, while she stands with her arm of power uplifted, ready to strike us or them 

on the instant at a vital point. 

Our country in our dealings with foreign nations has had a wise policy that has been gradually 

developed according to circumstances. The present situation has developed circumstances that call 

for a further enlargement of that policy. The great nations of Europe are now maintaining immense 

standing armies and powerful navies, with all the materials necessary for immediate war on hand. It 

is contrary to the spirit of our institutions, and we do not desire to maintain corresponding 

armaments and corresponding readiness for immediate war; but we must do so or stand at great 

disadvantage in settling the territorial questions that are constantly arising with European powers, 

especially with England. Hence it has become an object of great importance to us that the great 

powers of Europe, particularly England, should not possess dominions on any part of this 

continent. The growth which our foreign policy has had in the past should continue. Washington, 

that far-seeing man, initiated this policy by announcing that the United States would not interfere 

with the affairs of the Eastern world; that it would not make any offensive and defensive alliances 

there; that it offered to all nations alike friendly relations, conceding nothing to one which it did not 

concede to the other. These ideas were embodied tersely in the mottoes of succeeding 

Administrations in these words: “Good will and friendship to all nations, entangling alliances with 

none.” This policy was enlarged in 1823, and President Monroe then announced that European 

Governments must not plant new colonies, nor extend their existing possessions, nor interfere with 

existing Governments within the limits of the Western Hemisphere. This doctrine, called the 

“Monroe doctrine,” has been indorsed and approved by our people without distinction of party. 

The time has now arrived when circumstances demand that in order that justice may be done, 

and the peace of nations preserved, there should be a further enlargement of our foreign policy. We 

ought to demand or the great powers of Europe relinquishment of dominion over any part of the 

western hemisphere upon such terms as in view of the present situation are just and equitable, to be 

determined by arbitration or otherwise. In making this demand we should not threaten war, hut we 

should base out claim upon those broad and equitable principles that have been recognized already 

by the controlling nations of the earth, and are getting better and better recognized as time goes on. 

343

26 – 31 December 1895 

The principle has been recognized that territory may be taken from a nation and parceled out among 

other nations, or erected into a new and independent nation, that the sovereignty of a nation may be 

denied and a protectorate established, accordingly as by so doing wars may be done away with, the 

permanent peace of nations made secure, and the welfare of the world protected. England, with the 

consent of the other great powers, occupies and controls Egypt for its good for the preservation of 

peace and for the purpose of maintaining the Suez Canal open to the commerce of the world. 

England compelled China to open her ports to the commerce of the world on the ground that 

nations owed to each other reciprocal obligations in respect to trade and intercourse, and that if any 

nation shut itself up and refused to trade and have intercourse with the rest of mankind, it was the 

right of any nation, or nations, thereby debarred to compel, by force, such delinquent nation to 

perform its obligations to the outside world. England conquered India, and now rules over the 

countless millions of people which inhabit that country. This act of invasion and conquest of ancient 

sovereignties the world approves, because India itself benefited thereby, and the welfare of the 

world promoted. England, France, Germany, and other European nations are to-day engaged in 

subduing the wild tribes of Africa, Madagascar, Australia, and the numerous islands of Polynesia, 

and in planting colonies everywhere. Nobody objects. Everybody approves, and the welfare of the 

world is promoted by having the waste places of the earth, now haunted by savages alone, peopled 

by civilized men. 

America has always refrained, and will always refrain, from intermeddling with the affairs of the 

Eastern Hemisphere. We only demand that the rights of our citizens lawfully sojourning there be 

respected. England and her concert of European powers may settle the Eastern question to suit 

themselves. They may maintain the integrity of the Ottoman Empire or dissolve it and parcel out its 

territory as they please. Upon them must rest the responsibility for the wrongs now or hereafter 

done to the Christian inhabitants of the Turkish territory. They may regulate jointly or severally the 

affairs of Europe, Asia, and Africa, of Australia, and the many isles in the waters of the Eastern 

Hemisphere as unto them seemeth good. The United States will not interfere, but she claims, as one 

of the great powers of the earth, that her voice should be a potential one in regulating the affairs of 

the Western Hemisphere, and that she, with the other nations of America should determine the 

question as to the distribution of territory in that hemisphere. The well being of America and the 

welfare at the world demand that it should be so. It would be a great relief to America if the great 

powers of Europe exercising dominion over American territory would abandon such dominion and 

permit the people of such territory to govern themselves. 

We have already discussed Spain and the character of the rule which she exercises in America. 

The other powers of Europe, with the exception at England, hold dominion over territory in 

America of limited extent only and of small importance. Whether or not such dominion shall be 

surrendered is a question of little account, except in one case it would be obeying and in the other 

disobeying a general rule. England claims to have great dominions in America as she does 

everywhere else. The substantial part of what she claims in America is Canada and the territory 

connected therewith in North America lying north of us and not including Alaska. This claim 

embraces a very considerable part of the earth, covering an area of at least 3,500,000 of square miles; 

a little of it inhabited and some of it uninhabitable. This vast Canadian territory is susceptible of 

indefinite development; but it is not now making progress. It in substantially at a standstill, There is 

more emigration out of it than immigration into it. It would be so no longer if British domination 

was removed. English dominion is an incubus upon the territory north of us. White it continues 

there will be no prosperity, no go ahead. Enterprise will languish, business will stagnate, and there 

344


will be no growth, but let the Canadian territories be free and independent, allow the people there to 

strike out for themselves and the march of progress will begin at once. The woodchopper’s ax will 

make the forests ring. Its mineral deposits will be discovered and made available. The hum of busy 

industries will be heard where now the noise of falling waters is the only sound that breaks the 

solemn stillness of nature. Population will increase at a rapid rate, and land values will be quadrupled 

many times. Everything will be booming. 

While, as we have seen, the removal of British domination would be a great boon to the nations 

now organized in the western hemisphere, it would be an infinitely greater boon to the people of 

those American territories now under British dominion. The domination of England over any part 

of America is not beneficial to anybody there. It is offensive and annoying to everybody there. It is 

especially paralyzing to the territories over which it exists. It is an unqualified nuisance in every 

particular so far as America is concerned. 

So far as England is concerned it would be better for her to give up her dominion in America. 

She gets no revenue from her Canadian territories. It must cost her heavily to maintain her fortified 

naval stations at Halifax, Bermuda, and Esquimault. The prosperity that independence will give to 

the people of the Canadian territories will enable them greatly to augment their trade with England, 

and thus they will richly compensate her for any loss she may think she has suffered by granting 

such independence. England has dominions from which she is deriving a profit where she is needed 

and desired sufficient in magnitude to keep all her governing capacity busily employed. Certainly it 

cannot be expected that she will desire to hold on to a dominion which affords her no profit, where 

she is neither needed or wanted, and where she is nothing but a nuisance to the people of that 

dominion and the people of all its neighboring countries. 

In regard to the foregoing suggestions, inquiry perhaps may be made somewhat in this way: 

Suppose all that has been stated to be true, and that the dominion of England over any part of 

America is an unmitigated nuisance to the people of that dominion and to the people of every part 

of America. Suppose further that England refuses to treat about surrendering her American 

dominions, and refuses to submit the question to arbitration, what can be done without it?” The 

answer to this inquiry made on the case supposed is plain. The people of America would be fully 

justified in taking up arms and compelling England to relinquish her dominion over every part of 

America. Such an undertaking, however, ought not to be entered upon by the American people 

unless after careful consideration they thought they could accomplish it, because such attempts 

when they fail are not productive of good, they only make matters worse. The circumstances of 

modern times have been and are such that strong nations, even when they had good cause, have 

hesitated about going to war. They have delayed and debated long before resorting to that final 

arbitrator. The course, however, which we ought to take is not doubtful. Let us adhere to established 

foreign policy and the principles that underlie it at all times, on all occasions whatever political party 

may be in power. Let England understand that we consider her existing dominion in America to be 

an unmitigated nuisance and that our people are unitedly determined that she must abandon it. Let 

us give our reasons fully and continue in our opportunities without ceasing, and it is believed that 

she will yield. But if not and war must come, then let us do as we have done before in similar 

circumstances when we were much weaker than we are now. Let us trust in the God of battle. 


345

26 – 31 December 1895 

- 243 - 

Approves the President’s Interposition 

From The Christian Work 

We heartily approve the interposition of the President in behalf of Venezuela as an act of justice 

in behalf of a weaker State and an action carrying with it the quality of humanity. If we concede that 

the President might have assumed a less menacing attitude, we may also insist that Lord Salisbury 

might and should have been less exasperating and offensive in his dispatch to Mr. Olney, the rasping 

tone of which, in sending his reply, formed the immediate occasion, if it was not the efficient cause, 

of the President’s action. But, how ever wise or unwise any of the parties to the present controversy 

may have been is a matter of the past, discussion of which would probably not be profitable. The 

important question for each of the parties is how to reach a settlement satisfactory and honorable 

alike to all. That may not be the boundary line determined by President Cleveland’s commission, but 

assured1y neither will it be Lord Salisbury’s arbitrary Schomburgk boundary line. Of this latter there 

can be no question. Happily, the way to peace seems open. 


- 244 - 

VIEWS OF SENATOR SHERMAN 

He Agrees with President Cleveland on the Venezuelan Question 

Senator John Sherman expressed himself Sunday to a correspondent of The Philadelphia Press in 

Washington, as follows: 

I can only express my gratification that the general sentiment now prevailing both in the United 

States and Great Britain is that the controversy between Great Britain and Venezuela ought not to 

be the occasion of estranged relations, much less of war. I am strongly in favor of the general 

principle announced by President Monroe that the United States will regard any forcible invasion of 

the territory of at American State by a European power as an unfriendly act. The boundary question 

between Venezuela and Great Britain has been the subject of controversy for many years, and is a 

proper question to be settled by arbitration between those powers. Before the announcement of his 

doctrine by Mr. Monroe, Great Britain had acquired from Holland a settlement at British Guiana. 

The country between that possession and the settlements in Venezuela was an unoccupied territory 

of little value except for minerals. The inroads of English settlers upon this region have given rise to 

disputes between the two Governments, and each at different times has refused to arbitrate the 

question of boundary. 

I do not feel justified in criticising the President for his message, as his assertion and definition 

of the Monroe doctrine is, I believe, a correct one, and whether it is a dogma of international law or 

of American policy, it has a strong hold upon all of the nations of these continents, and was 

346


recognized and encouraged by Great Britain before its announcement by President Monroe. All 

parts of America are now occupied by civilized and Christian nations, the descendants of European 

ancestors, and they are no longer open to the conquests of European powers. 

The refusal of Lord Salisbury to arbitrate this question of boundary naturally created a feeling of 

resentment, but recent indications that this refusal will not be insisted upon by Great Britain have 

changed the whole current of public opinion, and now I believe the United States will, with the same 

unanimity expressed by Congress, cheerfully acquiesce in the decision of any fair tribunal that may 

be agreed upon between the two countries interested. The President in his communication to 

Congress opens the way to such a settlement by declaring that any boundary line fixed by the two 

continents will be cheerfully acquiesced in. 


- 245 - 

LODGE LOOKS FOR PEACE 

Venezuela Dispute the Result of a Misunderstanding 

THE MONROE DOCTRINE EXPLAINED 

England’s Boundary Policy Has Been Dictated by Greed—Democrats 

in Sympathy with the Senator 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 30.—In a speech delivered in the Senate to-day on the subject of the 

Monroe doctrine and its application to the Venezuelan boundary question. Mr. Lodge presented a 

series of historical facts and apt allusions which will be read with interest on both sides of the 

Atlantic. The controversy was due, he acknowledged, to the mistaken idea in England of the temper 

of the American people. The question, he contended, was one to be treated with the utmost gravity, 

for it involved the safety and honor of the United States. 

The speech is generally regarded by Senators as a fair exposition of the principle of the Monroe 

doctrine and its relation to the boundary dispute. Mr. Lodge spoke from printed slips for more than 

an hour, and had the closest attention. He frequently was interrupted by Democratic Senators with 

questions which disclosed their sympathy with his position. 

Mr. Lodge spoke upon the Monroe doctrine. He said that he had intended not to do so until the 

joint resolution introduced by him giving to the declaration made by Mr. Monroe in his message of 

December, 1823, the format sanction of Congress had received the consideration of the Committee 

on Foreign Relations. But since, the President had sent in his message on the Venezuelan difficulty, 

and Congress, without a dissenting voice, had authorized the commission which the President 

requested. This action had led to much wild talk and cries more vocal than numerous from those 

who believe we should never do anything to clash with England’s interests. This outcry, coupled 

with London’s attempt to frighten Congress by producing a stock panic, had tended to confuse the 

issue. He, therefore, thought a little cool explanation would not be out of place. 

Two cardinal principles, he said, had always governed the United States in its relations with 

foreign nations. The first was Washington’s neutrality doctrine, as laid down in the farewell address. 

The second was the Monroe doctrine, the history of which he traced in detail. The only attempt 

347

26 – 31 December 1895 

heretofore made by outside powers to break through that doctrine was the joint intervention of 

England, France, and Spain in Mexico in 1861. A second case has now arisen, and the maintenance 

of the Monroe doctrine is again threatened, as it was by the French in 1862. This second attack upon 

the principle of the Monroe doctrine comes from Great Britain, and is made under cover of a 

boundary dispute with Venezuela. In order to show the importance of this controversy, which has 

now reached a crisis affecting most gravely the honor, the interests, the rights and the well-settled 

policy of the United States, he sketched the history of the dispute between Great Britain and 

Venezuela, and of the negotiations between the two countries. He continued as follows: 

It will be observed, from this brief outline of the dispute, that no new rights have come to England or to 

Venezuela since 1814, i.e., since the declaration of President Monroe. They have the rights of Spain and Holland, 

respectively, nothing more and nothing loss, and are entitled to exactly what those inherited rights give them. In 

1836 a British Minister acknowledged that Point Barima belonged to Venezuela by asking the Venezuelan 

Government to erect a lighthouse there. In 1840 a British court in Demerara declared the territory of the Moroco, 

far to the east of the Orinoco, to be Venezuelan territory. In 1841 an English engineer laid out a perfectly arbitrary 

line running from the mouth of the Orinoco in a southerly direction until it reached the western boundary of British 

Guiana. Lord Aberdeen disavowed this line, and proposed another starting at the River Moroco and going further 

into the interior. Lord Granville proposed another reaching further to the west. Lord Rosebery another inside the 

Schomburgk line, but coupled with the free navigation of the Orinoco. In 1893 he proposed a second line, and 

meantime Lord Salisbury had extended the British claim while he was Secretary for Foreign Affairs. 

Every British Minister had offered a different line within which Great Britain would not consent to arbitrate, 

and every British Minister has gone beyond his predecessor in making fresh claims to territory beyond the line 

which he offered. At first sight this seems to denote inconsistency on the part of the British Government, but in 

reality their course has been just the reverse. There is apparently just as much support for one line as another when 

they pass beyond the Valley of the Essequibo. From Schomburgk down, every line was entirely arbitrary, and the 

constantly growing claims beyond the various lines offered was in entire keeping with the policy of the British 

Government. Their object was to get as much new territory as they could if the matter ever came to a settlement, 

which they have used every artifice to delay 

Asserting his belief that Great Britain had no good claim to a foot of land beyond the Essequibo, 

Mr. Lodge laid down the principle that if England, with no authority but a disputed claim, seizes 

territory, and declines arbitration upon it, her action does not differ from seizing and holding new 

territory in the Americas by right of conquest. The seizure of this South American territory by 

England, he asserted, was an absolute violation of the Monroe doctrine. He said: 

At the last session of Congress I called the attention of the Senate and of the country to the manner in which 

England had absorbed the Islands of the Pacific and to the necessity of our controlling the Hawaiian Islands, a 

necessity which now becomes more pressing with each succeeding day. I ask you now to look at the Caribbean Sea. 

I ask you to note the strong naval station which England has established at St. Lucia. Follow a line thence to the 

westward, and you will find Trinidad, the development of which has been strongly pushed of late years; then 

Jamaica, and finally British Honduras. That line faces the South American coast. This territory, claimed from 

Venezuela, is being pushed steadily to the westward along that coast, and the point at which it aims is the control of 

the mouths of the Orinoco, one of the great river systems of South America. The purpose of all these movements is 

written plainly on the map. If successful, they will give Great Britain control of the Spanish Main and make the 

Caribbean Sea little better than a British lake. 

We have seen British forces at Corinto. We know the attitude the British assume in Venezuela. They are 

attempting to take land on the Alaskan boundary. They have just denounced the modus vivendi and reopened in 

that way the perilous dispute of the Northeastern fisheries. It is not by accident that these events have all occurred 

or have all come to an acute stage within the past year. They are not due to us, for we have committed no aggression 

upon anybody. Of all these difficulties which are now upon us, the most immediate is that involved in the dispute 

with Venezuela. They tell us that this territory is remote and worthless. It is remote, perhaps, but it is not worthless, 

348


for if it had been the Venezuelan possession of it would be undisturbed. But it matters not whether it is worthless or 

valuable. The tea tax was trivial but our forefathers refused to pay it, because it involved a great principle, and the 

attempt to collect it cost Great Britain her North American colonies. The American people believe to-day just as 

firmly in the principle at the Monroe doctrine. They deem it essential to their honor, their safety, and their interests 

as a nation, and they are prepared to defend it when it is assailed. 

Mr. President, who is responsible for the unhappily strained relations between England and the United States? 

As I have pointed out, we have not been the aggressors on any of the points now in dispute, whether in Alaska or 

Venezuela. What then has strained our relations? The peremptory refusal to arbitrate this question of boundary. 

Who gave that refusal? Great Britain. We have appointed a commission, not to arbitrate between Great Britain and 

Venezuela, but to inform us, after careful investigation, what the true divisional line, in its opinion, should be. Who 

has drawn an arbitrary line at boundary and declared that they would not arbitrate to the east of it? Not the United 

States, but Great Britain. Ultimatums are what strain relations, and they have came from Great Britain and not from 

us. I believe that this question will be peacefully settled by the good sense of the representatives of England and the 

United States, but I am very clear that such settlement can only be reached by action on the part of Congress and of 

the President which shall be as temperate as it is firm, and which shall maintain the Monroe doctrine absolutely 

wherever it justly applies. The doctrine is as important to us as is the balance of power to Europe, and those who 

maintain the latter must not attempt to break down the principle which guards the integrity of the Americas and 

protect them from the interference of foreign powers. 

In the course of Mr. Lodge’s historical review of the Venezuelan boundary question he was 

asked by Mr. Hill (Dem., N.Y.,) whether Venezuela had ever, at any time, refused arbitration. 

“Never,” Mr. Lodge replied. 

“I refer to that,” Mr. Hill explained “on account of a published interview with Mr. Lincoln in a 

Chicago newspaper, in which it was stated that Venezuela had refused arbitration.” 

“I never met,” Mr. Lodge said “with any instance in which Venezuela refused arbitration. So far 

as I am aware she has sought arbitration constantly. She has rejected one or two of the compromises 

offered b Great Britain. She rejected one of them because Great Britain insisted on free navigation 

of the Orinoco. I do not think that Venezuela has ever rejected arbitration. On the contrary, she has 

always sought it.” 

At another point in the narrative Mr. Lodge was asked by Mr. Chandler (Rep N.H.,) whether he 

had discovered any trace of the Indians with whom treaties had been said to have been made. 

“I have not,” Mr. Lodge replied. “They must be concealed in the British ‘case’.” 


- 246 - 

THE VENEZUELAN BOARD 

Justice Brewer Said to be Chosen for the Commission 

NO CONFIRMATION AT WHITE HOUSE 

The President Finds It Hard to Excuse the Men He Wants 

to Investigate Venezuela’s Boundary 

WASHINGT0N, Dec. 30.—Justice Brewer of the Supreme Court, it is announced positively in a 

local paper, has been offered and has accepted a. place on the Venezuelan Boundary Commission. 

Justice Brewer is silent on the subject, and at the White House it is stated that none of the names of 

349

26 – 31 December 1895 

the Commissioners to be selected by the President will be announced until all the members have 

been chosen. 

An impression has been given by a Cabinet officer that the make-up or the commission will be 

submitted at to-morrow’s Cabinet meeting, and that after the names have been considered in that 

meeting the commission will be announced to the public. 

It is learned that the President has sent out many communications on the subject to leading 

citizens who would, if they would accept, command a large share of public confidence, but that 

many of those whom the President was disposed to select were unable, by reason of ill health or 

urgent private business demanding constant attention, to take up this important public work. 

From this report the inference is drawn that the commission will have less rather than more than 

five members. 


- 247 - 

MAKE-UP OF THE COMMISSION 

Justice Brewer Thinks It Possible Chief Justice Fuller May Be a Member 

ST. LOUIS, Mo., Dec. 29.—Justice David J. Brewer of the United States Supreme Court passed 

through this city to-day en route from San Antonio, Texas—where he has been at the bedside of a 

sick daughter—to Washington. Judge Brewer said the report that he had been asked to accept a 

place on the Venezuelan commission was untrue. 

“I would not be surprised,’ he added, “if Chief Justice Fuller should be asked to take a place on 

the commission. He and the President are warm friends. Mr. Cleveland appointed him Chief Justice 

in 1888. The Chief Justice would make an excellent man for the place, but, although he is wiry and is 

capable of doing an immense amount of work, I do not think he would accept the post. His duties 

then would be too great for any man. 

“As to Gen. Harrison, I do not think that he would accept a place on the commission. He 

probably can make more money out of his law practice and not do such hard work. And then— 

although I do not know—he may be a candidate for President. 

“If he is a candidate for President he probably wishes to be where the politicians gather, and he 

would not have the time to do this if he should act on the commission. . .” 


350


- Part 8 - 

January 1896 

351

January 1896 

352


- 248 - 

WAS SCHOMBURGK’S WORK 

England’s Claim Began with the Knowledge of Venezuela’s Wealth 

SALISBURY ANSWERED BY GRANVILLE 

Documentary Evidence that the Premier Did Not Correctly State the Facts 

in His Letter to Secretary Olney 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 31.—The State Department has made a discovery of considerable 

importance in the Venezuelan boundary dispute, which throws new documentary light on the British 

contention of ownership west of the Schomburgk line, and Lord Salisbury’s refusal to agree to 

arbitration east of that line. In the opinion of those officials engaged in studying the various phases 

of the controversy, this official document demonstrates that England had no idea of claiming a large 

part of Venezuela until Schomburgk’s scientific explorations had disclosed the great wealth of the 

region, and that she then determined to make exorbitant claims, trusting that part of them, at least, 

would stick. 

It is also their opinion that the document nullifies a large part of Lord Salisbury’s reply to 

Secretary Olney, by showing that the English Premier has not been entirely disingenuous in his 

relation of matters of fact. Lord Salisbury, in undertaking to correct Mr. Olney’s statement that the 

dispute began as least as early as 1814, which he says is founded on misconception, declares that the 

dispute on the subject of the frontier did not, in fact, commence until after the year 1840, and he 

then proceeds to narrate the true circumstances connected with the marking of what is called the 

Schomburgk line, in the main as follows: 

A grant was made in 1835 by the British Government for the exploration of the interior of the 

British Colony, and Mr. (afterwards Sir Robert) Schomburgk, who was employed on this service, on 

his return to the capital of the colony in July 1839, called the attention of the Government to the 

necessity for an early demarcation of its boundaries. In consequence he was appointed in 

November, 1840, Special Commissioner for provisionally surveying and delimiting the boundaries of 

British Guiana, and notice of the appointment was given to the Governments concerned including 

that of Venezuela. The intention of Her Majesty’s Government at that time was, when the work of 

the Commissioner had been completed, to communicate to the other Governments their views as to 

the true boundary of the British Colony, and then to settle any details to which those Governments 

might take objection. 

It is important to notice that Sir R. Schomburgk did not discover or invent any new boundaries. 

In submitting the maps of his survey, on which he indicated the line which he would propose to Her 

Majesty’s Government for adopting, Sir R. Schomburgk called attention to the fact that Her 

Majesty’s Government might justly claim the whole basin of the Cuyuni and Yuruari on the ground 

that the natural boundary of the colony included any territory through which flow rivers which fall 

into the Essequibo. 

“Upon this principle,” he wrote, “the boundary-line would run from the sources of the 

Carumani towards the sources of the Cuyuni proper, and from thence towards its far more northern 

tributaries, the Rivers Iruary (Yuruari) and Iruang (Yuruan), and thus approach the very heart of 

Venezuelan Guiana.” But, on grounds of complaisance to Venezuela, he proposed that Great Britain 

should consent to surrender her claim to a more extended frontier inland in return for the formal 

353

January 1896 

recognition of her right to Point Barima. It was on this principle that he drew the boundary-line 

which has since been called by his name. 

The newly discovered document consists of a letter from Viscount Leveson, (afterwards Earl 

Granville) British Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to Sir James Stephen, permanent 

Under Secretary for the Colonies, written under instructions from Lord Palmerston, Secretary of 

Foreign Affairs, for the guidance of Lord John Russell, Secretary for War and Colonies. This 

important letter shows exactly what went on inside the British Cabinet at the time. 

Schomburgk had been sent out by the Royal Geographical Society in 1835 with funds supplied 

by the Government to explore the Orinoco country, and that on his return to England in 1839, and 

apparently as a result of his familiarity with the resources of that country, the Government chose 

him as the most available person to select the richest territory in Guiana, which would naturally 

constitute England’s share in any subsequent division. The note is as follows: 

Foreign Office, 18 March 1840. 

Sir: I am directed by Viscount Palmerston to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 6th instant, relative 

to the expediency of an arrangement being made with the Brazilian, Venezuelan, and Netherland Governments by 

which the boundaries of British Guiana may be accurately defined. 

With reference to that part of your letter in which you state that Lord J. Russell considers it to be important 

that the boundaries of British Guiana should be ascertained and agreed upon if possible, and that Mr. Schomburgk’s 

researches in those parts have qualified him in a peculiar manner to be of use, should the services of any person 

acquainted with the geography of British Guiana be required for fixing the boundaries of the British territory, I am 

to state to you that the course of proceeding which Lord Palmerston would suggest for the consideration of Lord J. 

Russell is that a map of British Guiana should be made out according to the boundaries described by Mr. 

Schomburgk, that the said map should be accompanied by a Memoir describing in detail the natural features which 

define and constitute the boundaries in question, and that copies of that map and Memoir should be delivered to 

the Government of Venezuela, of Brazil, and of the Netherlands as a statement of the British claim. That, in the 

meanwhile, British Commissioners should be sent to erect landmarks on the ground in order to mark out by 

permanent erections the line of boundary so claimed by Great Britain. It would then rest with each of the three 

Governments above mentioned to make any objection which they might have to bring forward against these 

boundaries, and to state the reasons upon which such objections might be founded, and Her Majesty’s Government 

would then give such answers thereto as might appear proper and just. 

Lord Palmerston further considers that it would be expedient that the Brazilian detachment should be required 

to withdraw from Pirara and that the officer in command should be informed that any claim which Brazil may 

imagine itself to have to that village should be stated by the Brazilian Government to that of Great Britain, in order 

that it may be discussed and settled between the two Governments. 

I have, etc., 

(Signed) LEVESON 

To James Stephen 

In reference to the last paragraph, it may be stated that Brazil did withdraw from Pirara, and that 

the southern boundary of British Guiana has now advanced over 100 miles beyond that point. 


354


- 249 - 

ENGLAND’S CLAIM NOT TRIFLING 

Her Boundary, If Accepted, Will Take One-third of Venezuela 

“I cannot understand,” Carlos C. Bolet, formerly Secretary of the Venezuelan Legation at 

Washington, and now in this city, said, “how any one except an Englishman, notably desirous of 

obscuring the real situation, can try to belittle the Venezuelan-Guiana boundary dispute, so called. 

“To say that it is ridiculous to talk of war over a trifling boundary dispute seems plausible 

enough; but, is this a trifling boundary dispute? No one should want war. I have no idea that war is 

within the limits of possibility. England is not going to fight the United States over a ‘trifling 

boundary dispute.’ I have not considered that there was the least danger of war at any time, and that 

despite the fact that to my mind the question at boundary long since gave place to one of foreign 

aggression on this continent. 

The United States, from a pure sense of justice, might well extend its kindly offices to a weak 

sister republic against the encroachments at a strong European monarchy, but this country has an 

interest in the question of its own, and that for the reason that Great Britain has gone so far that her 

designs are palpable. No clever intrusion of the boundary question will afford an excuse for the 

attempt she is making to appropriate one-third of our country. 

“One-third, I say, and a third which includes the control of the mouth of the Orinoco River and 

of valuable gold mines. The Statesman’s Year Book, their official publication, in 1885 placed the area of 

British Guiana at 76,000 square miles. The same book in 1886 placed it at 109,000, an increase, you 

see, at 33,000 in one year. They claimed 26,000 square miles in 1814. Now the maximum claim is 

something like 115,000 square miles. 

“By the treaty of London In 1814, between the Dutch and the English, the Essequibo River is 

given as the limit of the Dutch possessions that were ceded to Great Britain, but England takes both 

sides of the Essequibo and both sides of all its tributaries. Then, because the ruins of some Dutch 

forts are found, farther up the coast toward the mouth of the Orinoco, she pushes her claims to take 

them in also. It is a matter of history that the Dutch were constantly invaders of the Spanish 

territory, which is now Venezuela, and they constructed fortifications to protect themselves, but they 

were invariably repulsed and driven back across the Essequibo. 

“Finally, in 1791, a treaty between the Spanish and Dutch was entered into and signed at 

Aranjuez, Spain. It was a treaty of extradition, and here again the Essequibo was named as the 

dividing line between the possessions of the two Governments. A photographic copy or this 

document, which is held by Spain, is now in the possession of the State Department at Washington, 

and will doubtless play an important part in the investigation by the commission to be appointed by 

President Cleveland. 

“There is another document, which shows that since the independence of Venezuela Great 

Britain has acknowledged that territory well within her present claim belonged to Venezuela. It 

relates to Punta Barrima, and the English Government suggests that Venezuela should establish a 

lighthouse there. 

“More modern history shows how groundless are her present pretensions. Look in the 

Encyclopedia Britannica. The edition of 1887, I think, states the case as it then stood. The 

comparatively small tract between the Essequibo and a line drawn south from Punta Barrima was 

355

January 1896 

then in dispute, and each country agreed not to enter upon that tract pending the settlement of the 

question of boundary. 

“Venezuela kept faith, but Great Britain not only occupied that territory, but many times as great 

an area far beyond it. 

“The control of the Orinoco means the control of the interests at nearly the entire northern part 

of South America. Does this interest the United States? 

“Is President Cleveland’s message too strong? Does not is firm attitude now prevent a war 

which would follow a dispute of greater immediate import? I think it does.” 

Mr. Bolet spends a considerable part of his time correcting erroneous statements that creep into 

print, and combating the perversion of fact systematically persisted in by one or two of what he 

terms un-American papers. 


- 250 - 

COLONISTS ASK LAND CONCESSIONS WITHIN THE DISPUTED TERRITORY 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 31.—The leading editorial articles of Demerara (British Guiana) papers, 

which reached the State Department this morning, relate to President Cleveland’s annual message 

and its reference to the Venezuelan boundary dispute. The Daily Chronicle, the Government organ, 

says President Cleveland’s remarks really amount to this: 

“The established policy of the United States is firmly opposed to the forcible increase of 

European territory upon the American Continent,” and, conceding that this is a pretty plain 

proposition, declares that there is only one condition under which Great Britain is at all likely to 

concede the right of the United States to be sole arbiter of the destinies of the other American 

republics, and that is that she shall declare a protectorate over them and make herself responsible for 

their wrongdoings and liabilities, “in fact, assume toward them in deed as well as in word the part or 

a wet nurse.” 

The suggestion for arbitrating the whole dispute is ridiculed, and it is argued that the disparity in 

power between Great Britain and Venezuela is the only thing that has delayed more prompt redress 

for the Yuruan incident. It is claimed that if Venezuela had been a great nation the indignity on the 

British flag would have been wiped out long ago, though the whole resources of the empire were 

required to achieve that end, and the threat is made that unless reparation for that insult is speedily 

made the character of the action adopted by Great Britain may render the necessity for further 

discussion respecting the boundary line between British Guiana and Venezuela altogether 

unnecessary. The article concludes: 

“It must be apparent to all who study the matter that, should Lord Salisbury accept the suggestion thrown out 

by President Cleveland and agree to submit the matter of the boundary line to arbitration, not reserving therefrom 

the territory lying on either side of the arbitrary line, such action would be tantamount to conceding that there is 

some doubt as to whether the Yuruan outrage was committed on British territory. If it were not, the demand for 

reparation would appear in a vastly different light to that which it at present assumes. Of course, we may be told, in 

fact a portion of the American press has already told us, the territory is occupied by implication when Great Britain 

356


demands an indemnity for the arrest of British policemen at Yuruan, seeing the arrest could not be complained of 

unless the place were assumed to be under British jurisdiction. It is difficult, however, to see where the implied 

occupation comes in. 

The occupation is an occupation de facto. The Union Jack files at Yuruan, and a British outpost is stationed 

there to indicate where the defined lines of British Guiana reach to. Beyond this is contested territory, regarding the 

ownership of which Great Britain is quite prepared to arbitrate, and has all along been quite prepared to arbitrate. 

That however, she will fall in with the suggestion thrown out in the Presidential message and submit to arbitration 

her claims to the entire territory claimed by Venezuela is not for a single moment supposable.” 

All the leading men of Georgetown, British Guiana, met Dec. 5 and formed a company to 

develop the country in dispute, petitioning the Government for “a concession of crown lands lying 

north of the Cuyuni River between the meridian of longitude 60° and the western boundary of the 

colony, and between the latitude of 5° and 7° north.” The company undertakes within two years to 

hand over to the Government to be used in building roads and bridges to the coast, $500,000, and 

to have a working capital of $750,000 additional. 

One of the principal speakers declared that they had recently had an opportunity of learning that 

the new Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, who was taking a 

great deal of interest in this colony, and who was inclined to push forward its development, was 

favorable to giving large concessions, and it struck a number of them that the colonists, who had 

borne the brunt of things so far, and who had spent and lost a good deal of money in the colony, 

should have a finger in the pie if there were any good things going. He had no doubt that the 

necessary money could be raised in England after the colonies themselves had subscribed the 

preliminary expenses. 

A number spoke in the same line. One of them asked if any part of the territory applied for was 

affected in the boundary dispute. The Chairman replied that the whole of it was, but according to 

the cable dispatch that day, “Lord Salisbury said there would be no arbitration.” 

Over 15,000 shares were taken in the colony, and the company was fully organized. It appears 

from the official maps that the territory asked for amounts to nearly 5,000 square miles lying almost 

wholly west of the original Schomburgk line, and therefore, according to Lord Salisbury’s 

contention, altogether in the disputed territory. 


- 251 - 

THE MAP NOT RELIABLE 

Schomburgk Made His Drawings for the Benefit of Botanists 

HE LAUGHED AT THE ENGLISH 

The German Was Himself Surprised at Britain’s Accepting His Work— 

Was Not a Practical Surveyor. 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 1.—When the Venezuela Boundary Commission shall be named and 

shall be ready to proceed with its work of investigation. It looks as though the members might be 

furnished with material that is in large part unknown to the British claimants for territory beyond the 

357

January 1896 

Schomburgk line, and even within the line, which Great Britain has indicated as the one within 

which it could not consider its right to territory to be made a matter of dispute or of arbitration. 

The Star to-night publishes an interview with Prof. Scharff, son of Prof. Theodore Scharff, late 

of the Imperial Normal School of Metz, which throws a new light upon the character of the socalled 

Schomburgk line and survey. Prof Scharff says: 

“We were residing in the Grand Duchy of Baden when Schomburgk made his South American 

trip. Schomburgk was an adventurous and somewhat erratic fellow, with a passion for botany. Up to 

the time of his leaving the Fatherland his life was that of the German student of the time. He drank 

his beer, fought his sword duels, and got into the regulation scrapes. He was well versed in botany, 

though, and, led by his restless, adventurous disposition, he wandered to North America, to the 

West Indies, and finally to South America, winding up in British Guiana, where he settled down to 

work upon his botany. Schomburgk undertook a trip into the country lying between British Guiana 

and the Orinoco. He was not sent by any Government, and had nothing in view beyond an 

examination of the flora of the unknown region and satisfying his taste for adventure. It was a 

private scientific expedition, and nothing more. 

“As he journeyed into the interior, he made careful examination of the flora of each new section 

of country. He classified the region, geographically, according to the character of the plants he 

found. 

“The preparation of the maps came about in this way. When he located the flora of a certain 

section he collected specimens of the plants, pressing them upon a folio, and writing below the 

sample a description of the same. Then, on the back of the folio, he drew a rough map of the region, 

wherein the genera and species abounded. The map was a defining on paper of the area containing 

specific classes of plant life. 

“Now it happened that in his explorations Schomburgk came upon the huts and camps of 

British squatters at various places. Some of them were wood cutters, living in the forests to get out 

the valuable woods for shipment to England, raising perhaps a few yarns or other vegetables around 

their habitations. Others were adventurers, prospectors, and hunters. When he found these places, 

Schomburgk naturally noted their location upon his maps for the guidance of brother botanists who 

might undertake expeditions into the interior. 

“I have seen those maps and studied botany from them. Schomburgk sent many packages or 

rare plants to my father out of friendship. Knowing his interest in botanical subjects, he would ship 

large bundles of tropical flowers pressed out on folios, and with the description of the country on 

the back as I have explained. The maps would be drawn upon a large scale when exhibiting the 

location of many varieties at plants within a defined area. 

“When Schomburgk came out of the forests and returned to British Guiana, the Governor 

General saw his collection and took especial interest in the maps showing the location of the British 

squatters, which he was pleased to call British settlements. The English Government immediately 

took Schomburgk in hand; his maps were accepted as geographical definitions, and the limits of his 

wanderings and of the discoveries of squatters as the boundary of British territory. 

“Schomburgk was not a surveyor and made no claim to be. He did not even make a 

topographical examination of the country he had traversed. He did not run a line, and the alleged 

British territory was merely the land occupied by men who placed their foot upon the soil and said: 

‘This is English ground.’ Schomburgk knew the worthlessness of his so-called boundary of English 

possessions, but be was not concerned in what the English claimed. They paid him for his maps and 

he laughed in his sleeve at the claims they based upon them. 

358


“I am satisfied from what I have heard my father say and from the communications from 

Schomburgk that his alleged boundary of British Guiana was an arbitrary one and had no basis or 

foundation in fact.” 

Copies of maps like those described are now in the possession of the family of a German 

resident of Washington, and will probably be demanded by the Venezuela commission when it sits 

in this country. 

The name of the late Prof. Theodore Scharff is familiar those acquainted with the leading 

German educators and Faculties. He was one of the most distinguished botanists of the Continent, 

and was frequently sent upon scientific expeditions by the German Government. He was a friend of 

the now famous Schomburgk, and was in constant communication with him while the latter was in 

South America. It is Schomburgk’s testimony that came to him which is expected to throw a new 

light upon the Schomburgk maps. 

Prof. Scharrf, Sr., died about three years ago. His son, Prof. Emil Ludwig Scharff, furnishes the 

information given above. 


- 252 - 

FAVORS AN ADVISORY BODY 

Chamber of Commerce’s Action in the Venezuelan Matter 

Would Have United States Commission Act with Similar Board Named by Great Britain 

The Messrs. Smith Bring up the Cost of War to Merchants— 

Other Speakers Before the Chamber 

CARL SCHURZ’S SPEECH WELL RECEIVED 

At the monthly meeting of the Chamber of Commerce yesterday, attended by as many members 

as the spacious rooms of the Chamber could hold, resolutions were adopted in favor of an inquiry 

into the Venezuelan dispute by a commission, in which Great Britain may have equal voice with the 

United States, with an additional arbitrator to be named by the two Governments, and appealing to 

the people of both countries to unite their efforts for a peaceful settlement of the controversy. 

The Committee on Foreign Commerce and the Revenue Laws presented the resolution of 

appeal. Its spirit and meaning were defined in an amendment offered by Carl Schurz, at the close of 

a well-studied speech, in which he suggested that the proposed court need not be called a council for 

arbitration, and that England might consent to it if it were known by another name—an advisory 

body, for instance. 

Mr. Schurz did not advise submission to any encroachment upon American rights. On the 

contrary, a portion of his speech was given to demonstration of the impregnable condition of this 

country. Only the surface could be scratched by seaboard attacks. The interior would grow in 

strength with each year. He showed that no foreign power would go to war with this country unless 

forced to it. 

The meeting gave Mr. Schurz a rousing indorsement. Everything he said met with cordial 

response. His declaration for peace, but only with honor, stirred the greatest enthusiasm. Outbursts 

359

January 1896 

of applause greeted every expression of loyalty and every utterance that favored a proper assertion 

of National dignity. In its manifestations of feeling the meeting did credit to the good sense and 

patriotism of the merchants composing the Chamber. 

Petty commercial spirit was asserted in a mildly absurd way by Charles Stewart Smith and G. 

Waldo Smith. This league of the Smith family excited only derision. Henry M. Taber, who had a 

chair so close to the Smiths that he seemed to be infected by them, ventured to object to a phrase in 

the committee’s report, which ascribed to the American people “unanimous” support of the 

Monroe doctrine. Mr. Taber had hardly spoken his objection when Francis O. Matthiessen, in a 

voice ringing with indignant resentment, exclaimed: 

“Mr. Chairman, I think the Monroe doctrine does meet with the approval and the hearty support 

of the people.” 

A shout of assent and applause long continued followed this sentiment, contrasting most 

emphatically with the silence that had attended Mr. Taber’s plaint. In deference to the Smiths and 

Mr. Taber, however, F. B. Thurber, Chairman of the committee which made the report, consented 

to scratch out the word “unanimous,” and the report and resolutions were adopted with the 

understanding that popular support of the Monroe doctrine was unanimous, barring the Smiths and 

Mr. Taber. Abundant evidence appeared in the proceedings that if the Smith idea had become 

aggressive the Chamber would have throttled it. 

The Resolutions Adopted 

The resolutions adopted were as follows, the first being the committee’s and the others Mr. 

Schurz’s, which the committee accepted: 

Resolved, That the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New-York, being profoundly impressed with the 

gravity of the situation which threatens the peace now and happily so long existing between Great Britain and the 

United States, appeals to the common sense and the common interests of the people of both countries to avert the 

calamity of war by a resort to arbitration or other friendly negotiation, which has so often been found to be a 

sufficient and satisfactory mode of settling international disputes, and to which both Governments stand committed 

by profession, precedent, and the humanitarian spirit of the age. 

Resolved, That the President of the Chamber of Commerce appoint a special committee of fifteen members, of 

which the President shall be one, to consider the expediency of an effort to be made on its part in conjunction with 

similar organizations, in the interest of international peace and good understanding toward obtaining the submission 

of the whole Venezuelan boundary dispute for investigation to a joint committee to be composed or the members 

of the commission already appointed by the President and an equal number of British subjects, and to be presided 

over by some man of eminent character and ability, to be agreed upon by the Governments of Great Britain and the 

United States; the commission so constituted to be not a court of arbitration, but a Commission of Inquiry or 

Advisory Council, and, as such, to report the results of its investigation and its opinion to the Governments 

concerned for their decision. 

Resolved, further, That if the special committee of this Chamber finds it expedient that such an effort be made, 

it shall have power to enter in the name of the Chamber of Commerce into correspondence with other commercial 

organizations and other organizations of public-spirited citizens to enlist their co-operation and to do such other 

things as it may deem useful and proper to further the object in view. 

In accordance with the resolutions it was decided to appoint a committee of fifteen members to 

enlist the co-operation of other commercial bodies and associations in the movement. 

Since a common understanding that the Venezuelan dispute would be considered filled the 

meeting room with members, President Orr called for the report on this subject from the 

360


Committee on Foreign Commerce and the Revenue Laws as soon as he took his gavel. The 

committee is composed of Francis B. Thurber, Gustav H. Schwab, Stephen W. Carey, and William 

H. Robertson. In the preparation of its report, it had the aid of Abram S. Hewitt, Carl Schurz, and 

Chauncey M. Depew. 

IN FAVOR OF ARBITRATION 

Report of Committee on Foreign Commerce and Revenue Laws 

Mr. Thurber read the report, which was as follows: 

To the Chamber of Commerce: 

Your Committee on Foreign Commerce and the Revenue Laws respectfully reports that, since the last meeting 

of the Chamber and the one hundred and twenty-seventh annual celebration of its foundation, at which the 

continued revival of confidence and the steady improvement in business were subjects of general and just 

congratulation, a sudden and deplorable check has been given to our growing prosperity by an occurrence which no 

foresight could have anticipated and from a quarter whence such a blow was least to have been expected. The 

President of the United States, in his annual message to the Congress, had referred to the pending dispute as to the 

boundary between Venezuela and British Guiana, in reference to which the good offices of our Government had 

been tendered and arbitration had been recommended; but there was nothing to indicate that a solution satisfactory 

to all parties might not be reasonably expected. The special message of the President on this subject came, therefore, 

as a sudden and unwelcome surprise to the commercial world, causing the apprehension of war to take the place of 

the calm spirit of confidence with which the approaching Christmas holidays were anticipated. The losses caused by 

the rude derangement of business, and by the fall in value of merchandise and of securities are too painfully fresh to 

require discussion at our hands. 

Upon the merits of the controversy between the United States and the Government of Great Britain it would 

be manifestly impolitic, if not improper, for the Chamber of Commerce to express any opinion while the subject is 

still under discussion between the responsible representatives of the two powers, but it seems to your committee to 

be eminently proper and desirable that this Chamber, which may without presumption claim to represent the 

commercial interests and feelings of the mercantile classes, should express its profound regret that the contingency 

of war between the two great English-speaking nations should have been suggested as a possible outcome of the 

pending correspondence in a controversy in which the American people have now, and probably can have, no more 

than a sentimental and passing interest. 

But for the suggestion that an ultimate resort to arms might become necessary, the work of diplomacy would 

have proceeded without disturbing public confidence, and the ultimate solution have been reached without causing 

needless ruin to many innocent persons and unmerited distress in many a household in which joy would otherwise 

have prevailed. 

Your committee feels also that the Chamber may properly reiterate its repeated declaration in favor of 

arbitration as a reasonable and the best method for the settlement of international disputes, and may express its 

regret that the Government of Great Britain has seen fit to decline, or to limit, the propositions which have 

heretofore been made by Venezuela, and courteously and wisely reinforced by our Government, for the submission 

of the boundary dispute to the decision of impartial arbiters, and may voice the hope that Great Britain will yet see 

that it is alike magnanimous and wise to reopen the question in dispute with a weaker power, and submit to the 

unbiased judgment of mankind the decision of a question of no great moment in itself, but to which extraneous 

circumstances have given sufficient importance to raise the issue of peace or war between two powerful and kindred 

nations, whose intimate relations with each other and whose permanent welfare demand at all times “peace with 

honor.” 

It seems to your committee that if the subject should be reviewed by both Governments in the spirit of mutual 

forbearance, looking rather to the future than to the past, and with the sterling common sense which has heretofore 

characterized the Anglo-Saxon race and gained for it the primacy of the world, the solution of the pending 

controversy will not be found to be attended with serious difficulty. 

The opportunity for this review will fortunately be presented when the report of the Commissioners created by 

the Congress of the United States for the purpose of investigating all the facts relating to the disputed boundary line 

361

January 1896 

shall have been received and communicated in a friendly spirit to both parties to the controversy, in the expectation 

that it will either form a basis for adjustment by negotiation or for reference to impartial arbitration. 

This course s rendered the more easy because Great Britain takes no exception to the principles declared in the 

Monroe doctrine, which indeed, was formulated at the instance and with the approval of the great British Minister, 

Canning. who “sought to redress the balance of power in Europe, by calling into existence a new world in the 

West,” and because also the President has declared that there can be no objection to a conventional rearrangement 

of boundaries which may be satisfactory to Venezuela, and that such a result will not be regarded by the United 

States as infringing upon its rights and interests, or as violating the spirit of the doctrine announced by President 

Monroe in 1823, and which still has the enthusiastic and unanimous support of the American people. 

During the present century about eighty cases of international dispute have been settled by arbitration. In the 

last twenty years these cases have occurred at the rate of two or three a year. They have covered questions of 

boundary, of insult to the flag, of property, of personal injury—every question, in fact, with which nations have had 

to deal, except the one question of actual existence of the national life. In every case the difficulty has been settled 

for all time, and no war has ever grown out or any or them. 

Our country has settled more than forty of these difficulties. We have been literally “the peace nation of the 

world.” Great Britain has settled about a dozen in the same period, and all the nations of Europe have had from one 

to seven cases. All of the South American Republics, except two, and two of the Central American Republics, have 

done the same. As between Great Britain and the United States there have been numerous controversies which have 

been thus settled from 1798 down to the present time. Among these were the St. Croix River boundary, the 

Passamaquoddy Bay dispute, and the northeastern boundary between the United States and Canada. This left the 

northwestern boundary between the United States and Canada unsettled, and in 1844 the controversy over this 

waxed so warm that it was made a party issue in this country. The parallel of 54 minutes 40 seconds was claimed as 

the northern boundary of the United States, and 54 minutes 40 seconds or fight became the Democratic campaign 

cry. England contended for the forty-ninth parallel, and this was finally decided in her favor. Then came the 

Alabama claims and the fisheries dispute, the first being decided in our favor, and the latter against us, each side 

accepting the decision and paying the award like business men. Then came the seizure of Canadian sealing vessels by 

the United States in Bering Sea, which was arbitrated, and about $400,000 awarded to the owners of the seized 

vessels, which has not been paid, owing to the failure of Congress to make an appropriation therefor, and which we 

are in honor bound to settle without further delay. The Alaskan boundary remains to be determined, but a 

convention providing for a survey of part of the line has already been entered into by England and the United 

States, and it is in a fair way of being settled in an equally reasonable manner. 

Your committee being convinced that their views as to a peaceful solution will have the support and sympathy 

of intelligent and patriotic people on both sides of the Atlantic, recommend to the Chamber the adoption of the 

following resolution designed to strengthen the efforts of the responsible officials of Great Britain and the United 

States to preserve the peace, with the aid and assistance of men of all races and creeds who look upon war as the 

greatest conceivable calamity, and upon peace and commerce as the most powerful agencies in promoting the 

progress of civilization, the growth of liberty, the spread of religion, and the general diffusion of happiness. 

Mr. Thurber’s Remarks 

The committee’s resolution followed. In support of the report and the resolution Mr. Thurber 

said: 

In submitting this report I would state that when excitement following the President’s message was at its height, 

and fortunes were crumbling in the financial world, it seemed to many members of the Chamber expedient that it 

should voice through a special meeting the great interests involved. 

A call for such a meeting was signed by double the required number of members, but as action by Congress was 

pending it was deemed advisable to await the regular monthly meeting, and afford an opportunity for sober second 

thought to assert itself. 

Desiring that the Chamber should have the benefit of the best minds and those most experienced in public 

affairs among our members, your committee sought the advice of the Hon. Abram S. Hewitt, the Hon. Carl Schurz, 

and the Hon. Chauncey M. Depew, and we are greatly indebted to those gentlemen for assistance and wise counsel 

in the preparation of the report. 

362


Pending the report of the eminent commission authorized by Congress and appointed by the President, your 

committee has not deemed it advisable to go into the merits of the controversy, but has confined this report to 

advocating peace and arbitration, and calling public attention to what these forces have accomplished during the 

present century in adjusting international differences. 

In this day and generation public opinion is the court of last resort, and religion and commerce should be allies 

in advocating the cause of human progress before this court. Public opinion can prevent unloosing the dogs of war, 

or even drive them back to their kennels if unloosed. This Chamber may well speak with authority in the interest of 

peace, for it has ever been foremost in upholding the honor of the Nation, as well as responding to the appeals of 

humanity. 

If necessity arises it will not hesitate at any sacrifice of blood or treasure to this end, but until that necessity is 

clearly apparent let us believe with Tennyson, that 

“The common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe. 

And the kindly earth shall slumber lapt in universal law.” 

Mr. President. I move the reception and adoption of the report and resolution. 

Throughout the reading of the report and resolutions and during Mr. Thurber’s remarks, the 

meeting was closely attentive, manifesting its approval of expressions of loyalty and National selfrespect 

with gratifying frequency. 

THE SPEECH OF MR. SCHURZ 

His Plan to Bring About a Body Which Shall Give Advice 

When Mr. Thurber had finished Mr. Schurz arose to second his motion. The meeting greeted 

Mr. Schurz heartily, and soon warmed to his enthusiasm. He said: 

As an honorary member of the Chamber of Commerce I am thankful for the privilege of seconding the 

resolution offered by the committee. I yield to no one in American feeling of pride, and as an American I maintain 

that international peace kept in justice and honor is an American principle and an American interest. 

As to the President’s recent message on the Venezuela case opinions differ. But I am sure that all good citizens, 

whether they approve or disapprove of it, and while they would faithfully stand by their country in time of need, 

sincerely and heartily wish that the pending controversy between the United States and Great Britain be brought to 

a peaceable issue. 

I am well aware of the strange teachings put forth among us by persons that a war from time to time would by 

no means be a misfortune, but rather a healthy exercise to stir up our patriotism and to keep us from becoming 

effeminate. 

Indeed, there are some of them busily looking around for somebody to fight as the crazed Malay runs amuck 

looking for somebody to kill. 

The idea that the stalwart and hardworking American people, engaged in subduing to civilization an immense 

continent, need foreign wars to preserve their manhood from dropping into effeminacy, or that their love of 

country will flag unless stimulated by hatred of somebody else, or that they must have bloodshed and devastation as 

an outdoor exercise in the place of other sports—such an idea is as preposterous as it is disgraceful and abominable. 

Politicians Eager to Plunder 

It is also said that there are some American citizens of Irish origin who wish the United States to get into a war 

with England because they believe that such a war would serve to relieve Ireland of the British connection. We all 

value the willingness of the Irish-born American citizens to fight for their adopted country if need be, and nobody 

will deny that their hearty love for their native land is, as such, entirely natural and entitled to respect. But as 

American citizens, having sworn exclusive allegiance to the United States, not one of them should ever forget that 

this Republic has a right to expect of all its adopted citizens as to their attitude toward public affairs, especially 

363

January 1896 

questions of peace or war, the loyal and complete subordination of the interests of their native countries to the 

interests of the United States. 

There are also corrupt politicians eager to plunder the public under a cheap disguise of patriotism, and 

unscrupulous speculators, looking for gambling and pilfering opportunities in their country’s trouble, and wishing 

for war as the piratical wrecker wishes for fogs or hurricanes. They deserve the detestation of every decent man. 

But aside from these classes, it may safely be assumed that all seriously minded American citizens earnestly 

hope for a continuance of the long-existing friendly relations between this country and Great Britain. Gen. 

Sherman, whose memory is dear to us all, is reported to have said in his vigorous sway: “You want to know what 

war is? War is hell.” And nobody who has seen war as he had, and as some of us have, will question the truthfulness 

of his characteristic saying. True, war sometimes develops noble emotions and heroic qualities in individuals or in a 

people, but war is hell far all that. If our boasted civilization and Christianity are to mean anything, they should 

mean this: No war is justifiable unless it cause or object stands in just proportion to its cost in blood and 

destruction, and human misery and waste, and political corruption and social demoralization, and relapse of 

civilization, and even then it is justifiable only when every expedient of statesmanship to avert it has been 

thoroughly exhausted. 

I shall not discuss now whether those who honestly think that our present difference with Great Britain would, 

as to cause or object, justify war, or those who think the contrary are right. 

I expect them both to co-operate in an earnest endeavor to encourage those expedients of statesmanship by 

which war may be averted in either case. Confronting a grave emergency we must, as practical men, look at the 

situation not as it might have been or ought to be, but as it is. For several years our Government has been seeking 

to bring a boundary dispute between Venezuela and British Guiana to a friendly settlement, but without success. 

Last Summer the President, through the Secretary of State, in a dispatch reviewing the case at length and 

containing an elaborate disquisition on the Monroe doctrine, asked the British Government whether it would 

“consent or decline to submit the Venezuelan question in its entirety to impartial arbitration,” calling for “a definite 

decision.” Lord Salisbury, after some delay, replied in a dispatch, also discussing the Monroe doctrine from his point 

of view, that the Venezuelan question might be in part submitted to arbitration, but he refused to submit it in its 

entirety as asked for. Thereupon President Cleveland sent a message to Congress recommending appropriations for 

a commission to be appointed by the Executive, which commission shall make the necessary investigation of the 

boundary dispute, and report to our Government, and when such report is made and accepted it will, in the 

President’s opinion, be “the duty of the United States to resist by every means the appropriation by Great Britain of 

any lands or the exercise of any governmental jurisdiction over any territory which, after investigation, we have 

determined of right belongs to Venezuela.” And Congress, by unanimously voting the appropriation asked for, 

without qualifications, virtually made the position taken by the President its own. 

Changed the Situation 

This correspondence and this message, by their tone as well as their substance, have essentially changed the 

situation. It is no longer a mere question of boundary or of the status of the Monroe doctrine, but, after a demand 

and a call for a definite decision and a definite refusal of the thing demanded and in answer to this something that 

may be understood as a threat of war, ft has assumed the most ticklish form of an international difference—the 

form of a question of honor. 

Questions of fact, of law, of interest, of substantial justice and right it may sometimes be difficult to determine, 

but there are rules of evidence, of legal construction, of equity, and precedents to aid us. A question of honor is 

often inaccessible to these aids, for it is a matter of sentiment. Affairs of honor have caused as many follies as affairs 

of love. It is a strange fact that, while the mediaeval conception of honor, which regarded the duel as the only 

adequate settlement of a question of this nature, has yielded to more enlightened views in several highly civilized 

countries, nations are in such cases still apt to rush to arms as the only means of satisfaction. 

It is generally said in Great Britain, as well as here, that there will be no war. The belief is born of the wish. It is 

so general because almost everybody feels that such a war would be a disaster not only calamitous, but also absurd 

and shameful to both nations. From the bottom of my heart I trust the prediction will prove true. But the prediction 

itself, with the popular sentiment prompting it, will not be alone sufficient to make it true. Bloody wars have 

happened in spite of an earnest popular desire for peace on both sides, especially when questions of honor inflamed 

the controversy. It may be in vain to cry “Peace! Peace!” on both sides of the ocean if we continue to flaunt the red 

flag in one another’s faces. 

364


The commission just appointed by the Presidents indeed consists of eminent, patriotic, and wise men. They will 

no doubt conduct their inquiry with conscientious care and fairness. So we think here. But we have to admit that 

after all it is a one-sided contrivance, and as such lacks an important element of authority. Suppose the report of the 

commission goes against the British contention. Suppose then we say to Great Britain, “Our investigation shows 

this and so we decide accordingly. Take this or fight! “How then? It is quite possible that a vast majority of the 

British people care very little about the strip of territory in dispute, and would have been satisfied to let the whole of 

it go to arbitration. It is not impossible even that Lord Salisbury himself, in view of the threatening complications in 

Europe and other parts of the world, and of the manifold interests involved, might at least rather let it be so 

submitted than have a long quarrel about it. 

Time When Commission Reports 

But it may be well doubted whether any statesman at the head of the British or any other great Government 

would think that he could afford to yield what he otherwise would be disposed to yield under a threat of war. 

Similar circumstances would produce similar effects with us. The fact is, therefore, that however peaceable the 

popular temper may be on both sides of the water, the critical moment will come at the time when the commission 

reports, and, if that commission remains one-sided, as it is now, the crisis may become more exciting and dangerous 

than ever. 

But in the meantime there will be something calling for the most earnest attention of the business world on 

both sides of the Atlantic. While that critical period is impending there will be—who knows how long?—a dark 

cloud of uncertainty hanging over both nations, an uncertainty liable to be fitfully aggravated on occasion, or even 

without occasion, by speculative manufacturers of rumors. Every business calculation will be like taking a gambler’s 

chance. The spirit of enterprise will be depressed by vague anxiety as to the future, by the paralysis of apprehension, 

and I need not tell you, as experienced business men, what all this means as to that confidence which is necessary to 

set in motion the rich man’s money and the poor man’s labor, and thus to develop general prosperity. It is of the 

highest importance, therefore, that this uncertainty be removed, or, at least, lessened as much and as soon as 

possible, and the peace sentiment prevailing here, as well as in England, of which the friendly message from the 

Chamber of Commerce in Edinburgh is so cheering an evidence, may perhaps be practically set to work for the 

accomplishment of that end. 

A though occurred to me when studying President Cleveland’s Venezuela message which indeed may well have 

occurred, at least in general outline, to many others at the same time, because it seems so natural. I was glad to 

notice that something in the same line was suggested by an English journal. The President has appointed an 

American commission to inquire into the British claims as to the Venezuela boundary. As I have already pointed 

out, the findings of that commission will, owing to its one-sided origin, lack an essention element of the moral 

authority required to command general credit. The authority would be supplied it an equal number of eminent 

Englishmen designated by the British Government were joined to the commission to co-operate in the examination 

of the whole case, and if the two parties, to prevent deadlocks between them, agreed upon some distinguished 

person outside to preside over and direct their deliberations, and to have the casting vote—the joint commission to 

be not a court of arbitration, and as such to pronounce a final and binding decision of the whole case— the thing 

which Lord Salisbury objected to—but an advisory council to report the results of its inquiry into the whole case, 

together with its opinions, findings, and recommendations to the two Governments for their free acceptance or 

rejection. 

Possible Effect of His Plan 

It may be said that such an arrangement would not entirely remove the uncertainty as to the first outcome. I 

believe, however, that it would at least very greatly lessen that uncertainty. I think it possible that the findings and 

recommendations of a commission so constituted would have high moral authority and carry very great weight with 

both Governments. They would be likely to furnish, if not a complete and conclusive decision, at least a basis for a 

friendly agreement. The very appointment of such a joint commission by the two Governments would be apt at 

once to remove the question of honor, the most dangerous element, from the controversy, and thus go very far to 

relieve the apprehension of disastrous possibilities which usually has so unsettling and depressing an effect. 

I do not know, of course, whether such a plan would be accepted by either Government. I think, however, that 

each of them could assent to it without the slightest derogation to its dignity, and that if either of them received it 

365

January 1896 

upon proper presentation, even with an informal manifestation of favor, the way would easily be opened to a mutual 

understanding concerning it. At any rate, it seems to me worth the while of a public-spirited and patriotic body like 

this, and of other friends of peace here or abroad to consider its expediency, and at the close of my remarks I shall 

move a tentative resolution to that effect, in addition to the one now pending. 

I repeat, I am for peace—not, indeed, peace at any price, but peace with honor. Let us understand, however, 

what the honor of this great American Republic consists in. We are a very powerful people—even without an army 

or navy immediately ready for action. We are in some respects the most powerful people on earth. We enjoy 

peculiar advantages of inestimable value. We are not only richer than any European nation, in men, in wealth, and in 

resources yet undeveloped, but we are the only nation that has a free hand, having no dangerous neighbors, and no 

outlying or exposed possessions to take care of. We are in our continental position substantially unassailable. A 

hostile navy may destroy what commercial fleet we have, blockade our ports, and even bombard our seaboard 

towns. This would be painful enough, but it would be only scratching our edges. It would not touch a vital point. 

No foreign power or possible combination could attack us on land without being overwhelmed on our own soil by 

immensely superior numbers. We are the best fitted, not perhaps for a war of quick decision, but for a long war. 

Better than any other nation we can, if need be, live on our own fat. We enjoy the advantages of not having spent 

our resources during long periods at peace on armaments of tremendous cost without immediate use for them, but 

we would have those resources unimpaired in time of war to be used during the conflict, substantially unassailable in 

our continental fastness, and bringing our vast resources into play with the patriotic spirit and the inventive genius 

and enterprise of our people. We would on sea as well as on land wage offensive as well as defensive warfare, be 

stronger the second year of a war than the first, and stronger the third than the second, and so on. 

Owing to this superiority of our staying power a war with the United States would be to any foreign nation 

practically a war without end. No foreign power or possible combination in the Old World can, therefore, 

considering in addition to all this the precarious relations of every one of them with other powers, and its various 

exposed interests, have the slightest inclination to get into a war with the United States, and none of them will, 

unless we force to do so. They will on the contrary carefully avoid such a quarrel as long as they can; and we may be 

confident that without firing a gun, and even without having many guns ready for firing, we shall always see our 

rights respected and our demands, if they are just and proper, may be, after some diplomatic sparring, at last fully 

complied with. 

Rule for Powerful Nation 

Now, what is the rule or honor to be observed by a power so strong and so advantageously situated as this 

republic is? Of course, I do not expect it meekly to pocket real insults, if they should be offered to it. But surely it 

should not, as out boyish jingoes wish it to do, swagger about among the nations of the world with a chip on its 

shoulder, and shaking its fist in everybody’s face. Of course, it should not tamely submit to real encroachments 

upon its right. 

But surely it should not, whenever its own notions of right or interests collide with the notion of others, fall 

into hysterics, and act as if it really feared for its own security and its very independence. As a true gentleman, 

conscious of his strength and his dignity, it should be slow to take offense. In its dealing with other nations it should 

have scrupulous regard not only for their rights, but also for their self-respects. With all its latent resources for war it 

should be the great peace power of the world. It should never forget what a proud privilege and what an inestimable 

blessing it is not to need and not to have big armies or navies to support. It should seek to influence mankind, not 

by heavy artillery, but by good example and wise counsel. It should see its highest glory, not in battles won, but in 

wars prevented. It should be so invariably just and fair, so trustworthy, so good-tempered, so conciliatory, that other 

nations would instinctively turn to it as their mutual friend and the natural adjuster of their differences, thus making 

it the greatest preserver of the world’s peace. 

This is not a mere idealistic fancy. It is the natural position of this great Republic among the nations of the 

earth. It is the noblest vocation and it will be a glorious way for the United States when the good sense and selfrespect 

of the American people see in it their “manifest destiny.” It all rests upon peace. Is not this peace with 

honor? 

There has of late been much loose speech about “Americans.” Is not this good “Americanism?” It is surely today 

the Americanism of those who love their country most. And I fervently hope that it will be and ever remain the 

Americanism of our children and children’s children. 

366


Mr. Schurz had enjoyed the sympathy of his audience from the beginning. Applause for him as 

he finished was long and hearty. Mr. Thurber followed him, saying: 

Mr. Chairman: As a matter or information, I would state that when I first read the resolution which Mr. Schurz 

has just offered, it seemed to me that it might possibly interfere with the free and clear workings of the 

Commissioners appointed by our Government to investigate this question; but the more I considered it the more it 

seemed a reasonable and proper step for this Chamber to initiate. 

Suppose, for instance, that we do not adopt the resolution, and do not take any steps in that direction, and the 

commission, which the United States Government has appointed goes on and makes its investigation and reports 

that in their opinion Venezuela is right and that we only have one recourse, and that is war; it would be too late then 

for such a step to be initiated as that proposed by Mr. Schurz’s resolutions, and hence I am inclined to think that it 

is a wise and proper step for this Chamber to take to place in the power at its President the appointment of a 

committee, which can go on and get up such a joint commission as is proposed by the resolutions; and hence, while 

I have not had time to confer with the other members of our Committee on Foreign Commerce individually, I 

should favor the adoption of the resolutions offered by Mr. Schurz as a supplementary step to the report and 

resolutions offered by our committee. 

CHARLES STEWART SMITH’S IDEA 

Wants New-York Merchants to Consider What War Would Cost 

Mr. Taber then broke in. “Mr. Chairman,’ he complained, “there is one word in the admirable 

report of Mr. Thurber that I object to. He says that the Monroe doctrine has met with universal 

approval of the people of this country. I object to it because it is not true, and I say, also, that it 

ought not be true, unless we have a navy equal to that of Great Britain and an army ten times the 

size that it is at the present time.” 

This stirred up Mr. Matthiessen, who retorted from his standing place in a far corner: “Mr. 

Chairman, I think that the Monroe doctrine does meet with the approval and hearty support of the 

people.” 

As the applause for Mr. Matthiessen subsided, the voice of Charles Stewart Smith was first 

heard. He said: 

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Schurz has expressed an opinion which I believe to be eminently true, that in the event of a 

war with Great Britain or any foreign power the United States would be stronger the second year, and the third, and 

the fourth, and so on, than the first. I have no doubt that that is entirely true. But let us see how we shall stand the 

first year. 

I will only occupy five or six minutes of your time; I will be as brief as possible, but I want to call your attention 

to two documents. One is a report of the Major General commanding the army to the Secretary of War, for 1895, 

and the other is the report of the Secretary of war for the same year. 

Quotes from Mr. Tilden’s Letter 

As a matter of introduction, allow me to quote from a letter written by the Hon. Samuel S. Tilden and 

published in 1885. He was referring to the state of the revenue of the Government at that time and the paying off of 

the public debt so rapidly, and comparing that with the desirability of fortifying the wretched and defenseless 

condition of our harbors and our seacoast; and he said: 

“I am of the opinion that the latter [the protection of the harbors] is a paramount necessity, which ought to 

precede the reduction of the revenue, and ought also to precede an excessive rapidity in the payment of the public 

debt.” 

Then he goes on to say: “The property exposed to destruction in the twelve seaports— Portland, Portsmouth, 

Boston, Newport, New-York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Charleston, Savannah, New-Orleans Galveston, and San 

367

January 1896 

Francisco—cannot be less in value than $5,000,000,000. To this must be added a vast amount of property 

dependent for its use on these seaports.” 

I read another extract “The range of the best modern artillery has become so extended that our present 

fortifications, designed to protect the Harbor of New-York, where two-thirds of the import trade and more than 

one-half of the export trade of the whole United States is carried on, are too near to the great populations of New- 

York City, Jersey City, and Brooklyn to be of any value as a protection. To provide effectual defenses would be the 

work of years.” 

Then he goes on to say that it is more than sixty years since the announcement of the Monroe doctrine; and he 

says at the close of that paragraph, which is the last that I will read: 

“It is clear that there ought to be some relation between our assertion of that doctrine and our preparation to 

maintain it.” 

Now, that was the opinion of a very wise man ten years ago. Now let us see what Gen. Miles and the Secretary 

of War say to-day. Gen. Miles says: 

“As the entire system of warfare has changed within a generation, we cannot rely upon the achievements of our 

fathers or the boasting of our own people to defend our political rights, property, or lives. The condition of this 

coast is one to tempt the avarice and cupidity of any fourth-rate naval power on the globe, and that it could be 

occupied by any first-class naval power is a fact apparent to any thoughtful, well-informed citizen.” 

He says again: “With all our boasted intelligence, pride of institutions, inventive genius, and superiority in many 

of the arts, industries, and commercial enterprises, we are as far behind in the modern appliances of war as the 

people of China or Japan.” And he speaks of the coast defenses as “the wretched, defenseless condition of the coast 

at the present moment.” He says further: “It is embarrassing for a military officer to acknowledge this condition of 

affairs and to record these facts. Yet he would do less than his duty to his country did he not endeavor to bring the 

truth before the Government, in order that it should be fully apprised of the true condition of affairs.” 

Again, he says that such was the condition six years ago, and substantially it it the same now. He recommended 

an appropriation of about ten millions of dollars a year, ten years ago, and in all we have appropriated for these 

coast defenses a million and a half. A very eminent engineer who has made the coast defenses a study has told me 

that it would take ten years to properly defend the City of New-York and its harbor; that we could not expend more 

than ten million a year profitably, and that we ought to calculate for a ten years’ expenditure of ten millions a year in 

New-York harbor alone. 

In 1885 or 1886 the Commanding General recommended an appropriation for twenty-seven seaports of 

$97,000,000, and that there be spent in the first year $21,000,000, and only eight or nine millions a year afterward. 

As a matter of fact, we have spent a million and a half. And the same language that is used by Gen. Miles is 

substantially repeated by the Secretary of War this year. He recommends for the harbor of New York 93 guns and a 

great number of mortars. We have, I believe, 2 guns in position, and we have built 2 twelve-inch, 2 ten-inch, and 5 

eight-inch of the 93 required. Of mortars there is a very much less proportion. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, before we brag quite so much, the merchants of New-York better consider what in the 

event of war, which Mr. Schurz has very justly considered as possible, although not probable, is going to be the 

effect on New-York as a city, and how much money we might be called upon to pay to England’s fleet if it came 

into our ports. 

HE OPPOSED THE REPORT 

F. C. Moore Said It Reflected on the President of the United States 

Mr. Smith’s appeal to the pocket nerve of the meeting brought F. C. Moore, President of the 

Continental Fire Insurance Company, to his feet. He said: 

I am opposed to the resolutions and to the report of the committee, notwithstanding the applause which it 

received, and especially the applause which followed the eloquent gentleman who so ably advocated it, which, 

however, may have been divided as a tribute to his talent rather than approval of the sentiments of this resolution. I 

am opposed to it for two important reasons.. 

The first is, it is a reflection upon the President of the United States. It is unmistakable in its terms, Mr. 

President. And there is another important reason, and it would be sufficient for voting it down, it seems to me, and 

368


it is this: That to-day there is only one issue before this or any other body of United States citizens; it is the issue of 

whether or not we will support the Government of the United States. [Applause.] 

Now, Mr. President, under the Constitution of the United States President Cleveland did exactly what he is 

requited by the Constitution to do. He expressed his opinion of the relations of this Government with Venezuela 

and with Great Britain. He was not called upon to express the opinion of this Chamber or the opinion of the 

majority of the American citizens, but his own, and he did it. It was, under the Constitution of the United States, the 

duty of Congress to do exactly what it did, and it did it, with remarkable and unprecedented unanimity. Now, there 

is the situation, Mr. President. 

Under the Constitution or the United States Congress has the right to make and declare war. Under the same 

Constitution the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the army and navy. When both of 

them speak it makes no difference what my friend Mr. Schurz thinks about the matter or what this or any other 

Chamber thinks about the matter; it is the duty of every American citizen to follow the lead and command of the 

President and of Congress. (Cries of “No! No!” from the Smith section.] If I stand here alone, I want to be recorded 

as voting in the negative. 

Now, Mr. President, let us think for a moment. Why should we talk in this report about the horrors of war? 

There is not a man in this country or in Great Britain who is not opposed to war, unless he is either a fool or a 

knave. It is unnecessary to say we are all opposed to war. It would be the greatest calamity of this or any other 

century, a. war with Great Britain. Also it is unnecessary to go into the question of whether this is a one-sided 

commission or not. I maintain that all of the sentiments expressed in this report are with propriety directed to Great 

Britain, which has refused to arbitrate, and should not be directed as a slur upon the President of the United States, 

who invited it. 

I want to remind the gentleman who has just taken his seat, and who was instrumental in calling this Chamber 

together, and for whom we all have such admiration and respect, that the last place where I met him was in the City 

of Strasburg, and in that city there were 30,000 soldiers, larger than our standing army, and if this Monroe doctrine 

does not mean just what the President of the United States says it means, you and I will live to see the day when we 

will have to have a standing army. [Groans from the Smiths.] 

Now, as to the sentiment of how much it will cost, or the present condition of the Government for defense, 

that is not an issue to-day. There is only one really great issue. It is not what we fear. It is what our representatives in 

Congress and the President—I did not vote for him; I voted against him and spoke against him, but I have learned 

to admire his ability and his fearlessness, and I am with him in this. And now as far as the money consideration is 

concerned, it seems to me that that ought not to be mentioned by any body of American citizens. 

I would rather see every dollar I have in the world burned up for fuel under the boilers of a battleship than to 

see this country take any other stand than that which accords with its dignity and self-respect. . . 

A. FOSTER HIGGINS’S SPEECH 

He Heartily Approves of the Suggestions of Mr. Schurz 

A. Foster Higgins next spoke, following Mr. Moore. He said: 

Mr. Chairman. I came here to-day with the distinct determination that if there was any attempt to stigmatize the 

President or to in any way reflect upon him, I would have something to say. I confess, Sir, an agreeable surprise – 

not surprise, but an agreeable frame of mind, to read in this report nothing of the sort which my friend, Mr. Moore, 

has referred to. I do not find in this report any reflection upon the President. There is expressed a regret that he has 

given such a message, by which our peaceful relations at this time of the year, when we are welcoming the Prince of 

Peace to the earth, have been rudely disturbed. I cannot believe that there is a man here that can have any other 

feeling upon that subject than a desire for peace. While I will stand by my country and make as great sacrifices as 

anybody else, I want to be sure that we are exactly right. 

I listened to Mr. Schurz’s address with great admiration and with a thrilling respect for him which I never shall 

lose. I hope his speech may be printed and circulated, not only among the members of this Chamber, but among all 

who wish a copy of it. It is full of noble sentiment, one that we cannot help but respect, I believe it is preaching to 

us the proper gospel; it is the gospel of self-respect first, and the same respect for your neighbor. 

I do not approach this question with any great respect for Great Britain’s position in it. I feel that she is wrong. 

But be that as it may, that is not a question here before us. I feel as Mr. Schurz has suggested, that we ought to use 

369

January 1896 

every exertion which any human being is capable of to avert a dreadful calamity which none of us can look upon 

with any complacency. War is a final resort. It should be a final resort. Every other resort should first be tried. This 

question involves some very important considerations. 

Gentlemen, I came here with the conviction that the commercial spirit is not a proper spirit to follow when you 

are seeking after patriotism. The commercial spirit leads to a treat deal of demoralization. It leads men to commit 

injustice to their fellow-men. It leads men to form great corporations by which individual enterprise is crushed out. 

It leads necessarily to aggressions and to acts which we must regret. Therefore, I do not feel that the commercial 

spirit is the proper spirit to adopt. It was the commercial spirit which opposed the very improvements in our 

harbors and defenses which Mr. Smith has referred to. The commercial spirit said we should never need them; that 

when we actually got into war the genius of the American people would be quite ample for the occasion. 

He Agrees with Mr. Schurz 

Now I do not want it to be understood we will take anything honorable position. A true and rounded life can 

only be one that has a noble end. I believe that the American Nation as a nation is exactly the same way. To put us 

down as money seekers and money hunters, to make it appear that we have nothing to consider but the money 

question, that we must not do this or that because of the great loss it is going to inflict upon us, is to humiliate this 

Nation. We have, in my opinion, the greatest destiny that any nation ever had, and my heart thrilled in response to 

Mr. Schurz when he said our destiny was to establish peace in the world. 

What is the cause of this controversy? A poor little weak nation, feeling utterly incapable of dealing with her 

competitor, comes to us and appeals to us to take up her quarrel. Well, we took it up, and we proposed to Great 

Britain to arbitrate. Now Great Britain has declined, and acts rather rudely about it; and I may think that she is the 

aggressor: but Mr. Schurz suggests a very nice remedy, and I feel that the destiny of this country is to hold out its 

hand to all oppressed nations, and to be constantly ready to extend our aid to every suffering being on the face of 

the globe. But I feel to-day the inconsistency of our noble position toward little Venezuela when contrasted with the 

position in view of the awful transactions in Armenia and Turkey. It is something that fills me with shame. I trust, 

Sir, that it will be the future or this great American Nation to always be ready, and at all cost, to extend its hand 

toward an oppressed nation or an oppressed individual or a suffering individual, wherever it may be on the face of 

the globe. 

Now, I can add nothing to the remarks which Mr. Schurz has made. They were perfect and complete. They told 

us of the dreadful peril in which we stand. I cannot look upon that peril with complacency, although, when the time 

comes that we have to go to war, I shall endeavor to adjust myself to it and stand my portion of the sacrifice; but I 

feel, as sensible men, we ought to do everything we can to avert such a calamity. I heartily approve of the 

suggestions of Mr. Schurz. 

G. WALDO SMITH’S VIEWS 

Says Something on the Line of Remarks of Charles S. Smith 

G. Waldo Smith was the next speaker. He said: 

Mr. Chairman: I desire to say just one word on the line of remarks of my distinguished friend Charles S. Smith. 

I sailed out of the harbor of San Francisco by the side of Gen. O. O. Howard only a few years ago, who we then 

engaged upon work connected with the army, and he said to ire that there were eleven powers who have it In their 

power to send ships by all the fortifications of San Francisco in spite of all that could be done to prevent them and 

bombard the city. 

Gen. O. O. Howard, in command of the Department of the Pacific, having all the resources at his command, 

says there are eleven powers that can do that work at any moment they attempt it. At this very hour there is a large 

number of ships at the very strongest calibre, the most powerful and the best that money can command, ready to 

take steam and enter the harbor of San Francisco and the harbor of Portland and lay those cities in ashes. 

It is time enough to talk about enforcing the Monroe doctrine not only over the American Continent, but over 

the entire hemisphere, when we have some preparation to do what we threaten to do. I will not say whether we are 

bound to interfere between a country having rights in South America and another country having rights there, 

whether we are bound in honor to maintain the rights of the weaker against the stronger. I will not raise that 

370


question. I only want to say that for 100 years we have lived in the closest amity of friendship with the British 

Nation on a line of 3,500 miles in extent, and any gentleman here can cross into any one of those provinces and 

travel year after year and never know there was a United States of America unless he saw the American flag. 

I simply want to ask this question in conclusion: Is there anything in the British Government, and people, with 

a common history, with common industries, with a common religion, marching on with us arm in arm and shoulder 

to shoulder in the great work of civilizing the nations, is there anything in their Government which jeopardizes our 

lives and liberties and the pursuit of happiness and the permanency of republican institutions? 

This ended the speeches, and adoption of the report and resolutions followed promptly, with 

only a few dissenting votes. Before the Chamber proceeded to its other business, Mr. Orr read a 

friendly cable dispatch from Thomas Clark, Baronet, President of the Edinburgh Chamber of 

Commerce, urging a peaceful settlement of the dispute. 

The Chamber decided to print Mr. Schurz’s speech in pamphlet form for general distribution. It 

was cabled in full to London last night. 


- 253 - 

MR. OLNEY WAS CORRECT 

Earl Granville proposed a General Arbitration 

A MISSTATEMENT BY LORD SALISBURY 

Upon the Accession of the New Ministry the Granville Agreement 

with Venezuela Was Repudiated 

WAHINGTON, Jan. 2.—The State Department is in a position conclusively to prove the 

statement of to-day’s London Chronicle, that “It is learned on the best authority that Earl Granville, 

in 1885, virtually concluded with Blanco a treaty containing an arbitration clause covering the 

Venezuelan international boundary dispute,” and that the Marquis of Salisbury, however, in coming 

into power later in the same year, virtually canceled this clause by limiting the provisions of the 

treaty to commercial questions. The Chronicle adds that “nothing could have been more 

unfortunate, inasmuch as the boundary dispute was on the eve of permanent settlement.” 

The records which Venezuela had already delivered to the United States Government before the 

Administration took such a firm stand in the matter with England leave no doubt whatever on this 

point 

Gen. Blanco, in 1885, negotiated with Earl Granville a treaty of amity, commerce, and 

navigation, to supplant the existing convention of 1825 between Great Britain and Venezuela. The 

new treaty included three paragraphs providing for the arbitration of any and all differences, and 

related particularly to the boundary dispute. Earl Granville’s letter accepting specifically the 

important clause is dated May 15, 1885, and in its entirety is as follows: 

I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt on the 12th inst. of your note, dated the 6th inst., respecting the 

proposed new treaty between Great Britain and Venezuela. 

In reply, I have the honor to inform you that her Majesty’s Government agree to the substitution of the phrase 

“power” to be chosen by the high contracting parties, instead of “arbitrators” in the article respecting arbitration, 

and that they further agree that the undertaking to refer differences to arbitration shall include all differences which 

371

January 1896 

may arise between the high contracting parties, and not those only those which arise on, the interpretation of the 

treaty. 

Her Majesty’s Government are also prepared to meet generally the wishes of the Venezuelan Government as to 

river navigation and coasting trade as connected with it: but I beg leave to point out that this exception to most 

favored nation or national treatment should not interfere with ocean-going steamers touching consecutively at two 

or more ports of the republic. 

With regard to the arrangements made by Venezuela with Colombia, I have the honor to state that her 

Majesty’s Government will agree that the provisions of the most-favored-nation article proposed by them shall not 

include special arrangements with regard to local trade entered into by Venezuela with respect to traffic across the 

land frontier. 

I trust that these modifications will meet your views, and that I may shortly hear from you that a formal draft 

treaty framed on that with Paraguay, with the addition of an article respecting arbitration, and the alteration in the 

most-favored-nation stipulation now suggested, may be prepared for your approval. 

The treaty was fully concluded less than two months afterward, but the Gladstone Government 

was overthrown at this time on questions wholly disconnected from Venezuelan matters, which 

were conducted in secret, and Lord Salisbury, succeeding Earl Granville as Foreign Secretary, found 

it incumbent upon himself to complete the negotiations, which he immediately proceeded to do by 

sending Gen. Guzman Blanco a note on July 27, absolutely reversing Earl Granville’s action. The 

portion of the note referring to this clause is as follows: 

Her Majesty’s Government are unable to concur in the assent given by their predecessors in office to the 

general arbitration article proposed by Venezuela, and they are unable to agree to the inclusion in it of matters other 

than those arising out of the interpretation or alleged violation of this particular treaty. To engage to refer to 

arbitration all disputes and controversies whatsoever would be without precedent in the treaties made by Great 

Britain. Questions might arise such as those involving the title of the British Crown to territory, or other sovereign 

rights which her Majesty’s Government could not pledge themselves beforehand to refer to arbitration. 

This letter removed all doubt as to the broad terms of Earl Granville’s agreement, for Lord 

Salisbury distinctly put such a construction on the treaty (which he concedes was assented to) that 

the title to the territory of the British Crown colony of Guiana had to be arbitrated under its specific 

terms. 

This throws an entirely new and unfavorable light on a portion of Lord Salisbury’s retort to 

Secretary Olney in the latter part of the Foreign Office dispatch of Nov. 26 last, in which he says: 

Mr. Olney is mistaken in supposing that in 1886 “a treaty was practically agreed upon containing a general 

arbitration clause, under which the parties might have submitted the boundary dispute to the decision of a third 

power or of several powers in amity with both.” It is true that Gen. Guzman Blanco proposed that the commercial 

treaty between the two countries should contain a clause of this nature, bat it had reference to future disputes only. 

Lord Salisbury deemed proper in this dispatch to underscore the word “future”, and it was 

printed in italics in the Foreign office official document. That there is an equivocation in this 

statement can hardly be doubted in connection with Salisbury’s own earlier letter to Gen. Guzman 

Blanco and Earl Granville’s notes. 


372


- 254 - 

ITS CLAIM IS WORTHLESS 

Great Britain’s Pretensions in Venezuela Have No Good Basis 

DISCOVERY BY AN ENGLISH PAPER 

IMPORTANT CORRESPONDENCE IS FOUND 

The South American Republic’s Claim to Disputed Territory Shown to be a Just One 

LONDON, Jan. 2.—A special representative of The Daily Chronicle who is now in Washington 

cables to that paper that he has obtained from a source, which he is pledged not to reveal, the 

official unpublished correspondence exchanged by Great Britain and Venezuela between November, 

1840, when Sir Robert Schomburgk was appointed to delimit the frontier of British Guiana, and 

April, 1842, when England removed the boundary posts set up by Sir Robert Schomburgk. 

Señor Fortique, Venezuelan Minister to Great Britain, wrote to Lord Aberdeen, Colonial 

Secretary of State in the Cabinet of Sir Robert Peel, in October, 1841, referring to Venezuela’s 

proposal to conclude a treaty an the boundaries, and protesting that before the proposal was 

answered a sentry-box built on the republic’s territory. Señor Fortique again urged that a boundary 

treaty be entered upon. 

Lord Aberdeen replied that he had received Sir Robert Schomburgk’s report that he had planted 

boundary posts at certain points in the country he had surveyed, being fully aware that the 

demarcation so made was merely a preliminary measure open to future discussion between Great 

Britain and Venezuela. It did not appear, however, that Sir Robert Schomburgk had left any 

building. 

Señor Fortique replied that Sir Robert Schomburgk had planted at the mouth of the Orinoco 

River several posts. He had also raised the British flag with a show of force and performed other 

acts of dominion In Venezuela. 

Extreme courtesy alone prevented Venezuela from forcibly excelling him from the country. 

After some delay, Lord Aberdeen replied to Señor Fortique, confirming his previous statement 

and adding that much unnecessary inconvenience would result from the removal of the posts, as 

they would afford the only tangible means by which her Majesty’s Government could be prepared to 

discuss the question of boundaries with Venezuela. The posts were erected for that express purpose, 

and not, as the Venezuelan Government appeared to apprehend, as indications of dominion and 

empire on the part of Great Britain. 

In the same dispatch Lord Aberdeen expressed pleasure at learning that the Governor of Guiana 

had assured the Venezuelan emissaries that Great Britain had not occupied Point Barima. 

Señor Fortique again wrote to re-insist upon the removal of the posts in January, 1842. 

The Chronicle then quotes from the second note of Lord Salisbury to Secretary of State Olney the 

words: 

“At the urgent entreaty of the Venezuelan Government, these two posts were afterward 

removed, as stated by Mr. Olney, but this concession was made on the distinct understanding that 

Great Britain did not thereby in any way abandon her claim to that position.” 

The Chronicle also quotes from the two documents in which this concession was made. 

The first document consists of a dispatch sent in March, 1842, by Henry Light, Governor of 

Guiana, to Daniel O’Leary, British Consul at Caracas, stating that the Colonial Secretary had ordered 

373

January 1896 

the Governor to remove the landmarks. The other document is a dispatch from Mr. O’Leary to the 

Venezuelan Government containing the substance of Gov. Light’s dispatch. 

The Chronicle remarks that nothing indicates the condition asserted by Lord Salisbury, and adds: 

“If the above documents are genuine, and. their source excludes suspicion, the Schomburgk line is 

proved worthless as a basis of any territorial claim whatever.” 

Commenting editorially on the subject, The Chronicle says: 

“We are bound to say, assuming, as we are bound to assume, the accuracy of our representative’s citations, that 

they vitiate Lord Salisbury’s second dispatch to Secretary Olney, and render it necessary for us to revise our whole 

view of the situation. Clearly, there can now be no question regarding the Schomburgk line as a ramrod thrust 

between Guiana and Venezuela. In a word England and the United States have a way out. We look to the statesmen 

on both sides to enlarge it until there is found complete escape from a situation of the utmost peril.” 


- 255 - 

DISPLEASED WITH SALISBURY 

English Papers Hint the Premier Has Hoodwinked the People 

LONDON, Jan. 3.—The Pall Mall Gazette says it has no reason to doubt that the dispatches 

which The Daily Chronicle quotes, containing the official unpublished correspondence exchanged by 

Great Britain and Venezuela between November, 1840, when Sir Robert Schomburgk was 

appointed to delimit the frontier of British Guiana, and April, 1842, when England removed the 

boundary posts set up by Schomburgk, are genuine. The Gazette presumes that Secretary Olney and 

President Cleveland knew of these letters, and asks why, then, Secretary Olney did not use them to 

refute Lord Salisbury’s second dispatch. “Did he,” The Gazette asks, “deliberately prefer to pick a 

quarrel with Lord Salisbury?” 

The St. James’s Gazette says: “The British people are not being properly treated by the 

Government when it is left to the enterprise of a newspaper to discover, in a foreign country, that 

unpublished official correspondence upon which peace or war may depend, does not justify the 

statements of our own Foreign Minister.” 

Mr. Chamberlain, when shown at the Colonial Office a copy of The Chronicle’s accusation of 

cognizance on the part of the Government of the unpublished correspondence, declared that the 

charge was beneath contempt. 

Sir Charles Dilke, M.P., was to-day asked to State his views in regard to the new developments in 

the Venezuelan dispute growing out of the discoveries of old correspondence by the special 

representative of The Daily Chronicle now in Washington. Sir Charles said he did not think that The 

Chronicle’s disclosures would in any degree alter the situation. It was obvious, he said, that the 

Venezuelan Government would have published before this any documents likely to help its case. In 

regard to the boundary posts along the Schomburgk line mentioned in The Chronicle’s dispatches, he 

said the whole thing depended upon what was the exact position of these posts. 

There appeared to be a good deal of ambiguity in the correspondence. A point near the mouth 

of the Orinoco River seemed to have been in the mind of the Venezuelan Government at the time 

374


the correspondence passed, but he thought that Lord Aberdeen could not have been referring to the 

same point in his reply to Senhor Forteque, the Venezuelan Minister to Great Britain at that time. 

He considered that the proposals of Great Britain had never been varied. England had always 

contended that the site of the old Dutch fort was territory belonging to Great Britain, as the heir or 

the Dutch. Lord Aberdeen probably had in mind a line further in the interior and away from the sea, 

concerning which there had always been and still was a willingness to negotiate. 

As he understood it, Sir Charles Dilke said Lord Salisbury’s position was that in 1885 England 

was prepared to arbitrate the questions concerning the back country a great deal more freely than 

she is now, when a portion of the disputed territory is occupied by British subjects who have settled 

there on the strength of its being under British rule. Before answering the statement made in The 

Chronicle, that the Schomburgk line was worthless, he said he would require to be informed what the 

Schomburgk line was. 


- 256 - 

COMMISSION IN SESSION 

Men to Investigate Venezuela’s Boundary Hold a Meeting 

JUSTICE BREWER CHOSEN PRESIDENT 

Credentials Read that the Report Is to be Made Direct to President Cleveland. 

CONSULTATION HAD WITH MR. OLNEY 

The Secretary of State Will Not Take Part In the Inquiry, However 

—To Meet Again Jan. 11 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 4.—The Venezuelan Commission held its first meeting here to-day and 

organized by electing Justice Brewer President. 

Four members at the commission were present. The members assembled at the State 

Department at 11 o’clock this morning for a discussion of the great work before them. The absentee 

was Andrew D. White of New-York, who will be in Washington Tuesday. Frederic R. Caudert was 

the first member of the commission to appear. He reached the State Department shortly after 10:30 

o’clock, and was shown into Secretary Olney’s office. Fifteen minutes later Justice David S. Brewer 

and Prof. Daniel S. Gilman arrived together, and at 11 o’clock Chief Justice Richard Alvey, the 

remaining Commissioner, put in his appearance, having just arrived from Hagerstown, Md. 

The four Commissioners remained with Secretary Olney for half an hour, discussing routine 

matters pertaining to their organization. Mr. Olney will not participate in any way in the work of the 

commission, and when the Commissioners emerged from his office into the diplomatic reception 

room he remained behind. 

Credentials of Commissioners 

Each member of the tribunal, with the exception of Prof. White, received his formal certificate 

of appointment from the President to-day. The form of this credential is peculiar and extremely 

375

January 1896 

explicit, urging the Commissioners to proceed without delay, pointing out rules for their 

government, and noting that the report must be made to the President. 

The form of the credential is as follows: 

To David J. Brewer: 

You are hereby appointed member of the commission to investigate and report upon the true location of the 

divisional line between the territory of the Republic of Venezuela and that of British Guiana. 

It is expected that the commission will avail itself of all possible sources of information, will apply to the matter 

all pertinent rules of municipal and international law, and will make a report to the President of their conclusions, 

together with the evidence and documents submitted to and considered by them, with as little delay as is compatible 

with the thorough and impartial consideration of the subject to be dealt with. 

In testimony whereof, I have caused these letters to be patent and the seal of the United States to be hereunto 

affixed. 

Given under my hand at the City of Washington on the 4th day of January, in the year at our Lord one 

thousand eight hundred and ninety-six and of the independence of the United States of America the one hundred 

and twentieth. 

GROVER CLEVELAND 

By the President. 

RICHARD OLNEY, Secretary of State. 

Upon assembling in the diplomatic room the Commissioners immediately proceeded to the 

selection of a presiding officer, who will hereafter be designated as President. As was expected, 

Justice Brewer was chosen unanimously. The fact that he was named first on the list of the 

commissioners as announced by the President was the basis for this expectation, but Justice 

Brewer’s high standing as a jurist is understood to have been the real reason why he was the choice 

of his colleagues. 

President Brewer proceeded to administer the oath of office to the other Commissioners, and 

then Commissioner Alvey acted in a like capacity for the President. The form of oath was as follows: 

I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and 

domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance too the same; that I take this obligation freely, without mental 

reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of member of 

the commission to investigate and report upon the location of the true divisional line between the territory of the 

Republic of Venezuela and British Guiana. 

The Business Transacted 

A motion to appoint a clerk to act for the present temporary session of the commission was 

adopted, and J. Walter Blanford, private secretary of the Secretary of State, was accordingly 

designated. 

On motion of Mr. Coudert, the matter of the selection of quarters for the commission was left 

to President Brewer and Commissioner Alvey. 

Commissioner Gilman moved that an inquiry be made as to the best map showing the physical 

characteristics of the country in question and whether it could be reproduced in convenient form for 

the use of the commission. This was seconded by Commissioner Alvey and adopted, and the 

commission authorized Commissioner Gilman to make such inquiry. 

376


This concluded all business for the present, and on motion of Commissioner Coudert the 

commission adjourned to meet Saturday next, Jan. 11, at 10:30 o’clock A.M. (unless the President of 

the commission selects another date) in the diplomatic room of the Department of State. 

It was 12.30 o’clock when the adjournment took place, and the commission had been in session 

for just one hour. The four Commissioners went back to Secretary Olney’s office, and after telling 

him of what they had done, walked over to the White House to pay their respects to President 

Cleveland. They spent about fifteen minutes with Mr. Cleveland, and then went to luncheon. 

The commission will exercise great care in the selection of a permanent clerk, as this matter is 

deemed to be of some importance. It is understood that a person who speaks and writes the Dutch, 

Spanish, and English languages is desired. 

Early Report Improbable 

Although the President, in the official appointment of each member of the Venezuela 

Commission, enjoins upon the commission the duty of making as early a report as possible 

consistent with thorough examination of the facts bearing upon the divisional line between 

Venezuela and British Guiana and the commission work as quickly as the subject will permit, it is 

not expected, by those who are familiar with business of this kind, that a report can be made short 

of three or four months. By the time the commission has been instructed by perusal of the 

documents in the case and the maps have been examined, the British position will be somewhat 

changed, and the way out of the contention will be satisfactory to all and humiliating to none. 

The reception in England with astonishment of the news sent from this city by the 

correspondent of The London Chronicle, although it has all been taken from correspondence that 

has not been secret, is regarded as an indication that the subject has been less carefully investigated 

there than here, and that reliance was place too completely upon the bumptious arrogance of 

Chamberlain and the belief that the British people would accept his assurances without going to the 

trouble to inquire further to see whether be was justified in defying American sentiment for no 

better reason, perhaps, than to support a determination to acquire a reputation for conducting a 

vigorous colonial policy. When the Venezuela Commission has completed its work, it is believed 

that it will have collected the fist full, fair, and disinterested history of the boundary dispute in 

existence. It is the opinion of those who have studied the temper of the British press during the last 

week that there will be strong unofficial pressure brought to bear to induce Great Britain to 

contribute its share of the history, and that skilled bands will be assigned to put it in such shape that 

it will be at once a history and an argument. 


- 257 - 

SALISBURY WILL CLIMB DOWN 

Negligence of Subordinates Will Be Used as a Convenient Ladder 

LONDON. Jan. 4—The cable dispatches sent from Washington by the special representative of 

The Morning Chronicle giving the unpublished correspondence anent the British Guiana boundary 

377

January 1896 

dispute exchanged by Lord Aberdeen, Colonial Secretary in the Cabinet of Sir Robert Peel, and 

Señor Fortique, the then Venezuelan Minister to England, seem to have burst on the Foreign Office 

as a surprise. 

It is almost incredible that the permanent officials at the Foreign Office, who are responsible for 

coaching the Prime Minister, would have been ignorant of this correspondence. Yet it is known in 

official circles that the brief on which Lord Salisbury based his reply to Secretary of State Olney did 

not mention the dispatches that were cabled to The Chronicle. 

It is understood that the Prime Minister is deeply chagrined because of this fact. He may mark 

his displeasure by insisting tat certain of the permanent officials shall retire. 

A measure like this would be a preliminary to a general surrender, and would afford a convenient 

bridge for Lord Salisbury’s retreat from the position he has assumed. 

The Foreign Office will prepare an extensive report on the Venezuelan dispute. This will be 

accompanied with maps showing the historical details of the territory in dispute. That Lord Salisbury 

will climb down seems to be assured. 

The Saturday Review (Independent) advocated the making of concessions to the United States. It 

quotes from a New-York paper to the effect that it will be better for England to eat crow at home 

than to eat dirt abroad, and adds: “In view of our enemies on the Continent Lord Salisbury must 

yield. It’s better to eat a deal of some crow than any foreign dirt.” 


- 258 - 

MR. HENRY NORMAN’S REPORTS 

Immediately on the receipt in London of the unanimous action of both houses of Congress in 

response to the message of the President on the question of arbitration of the Venezuelan dispute 

with Great Britain The London Chronicle sent to this country Mr. Henry Norman, an associate editor 

of that journal His mission seems to have been to ascertain the real purpose of the American 

Government and the temper and opinion at the American people, to point out the probable or 

possible course of events and the policy open to the two Governments respectively, with the 

consequences likely to follow, and to furnish any information bearing on the differences between 

the United States and Great Britain or Great Britain and Venezuela that would help to guide either 

the public opinion or the Government at his own country. His first dispatch to his journal was 

published on Jan. 2 and proved to be extremely interesting and valuable. 

It has appeared proper to those American journalists who have criticised the President, not only 

to sustain the course of the English Government toward our own at this moment, but to endeavor 

to prove that in their variegated dealing with Venezuela the successive Ministers of her Majesty have 

always and in the minutest details been entirely and, so to speak, fatally right. Mr. Norman is not that 

kind of journalist He knows his profession and his duty to his conscience too well. Trained by years 

of travel and investigation in the far East, in novel surroundings among strange peoples, to the 

exercise of cool and broad judgment on intricate questions affecting the future of Great Britain, he 

has learned that no Government is infallible and that none can safely shut its eye to the facts when 

they have been discovered. He knew that the crux of the case of Lord Salisbury, whether in relation 

378


to Venezuela or to the United States, was the Schomburgk line. All on one side of that now famous 

line Lord Salisbury is ready to arbitrate; all on the other side be claims has been and always will be 

British territory as to which his Government will not take the decision or the opinion of any one else 

whatsoever. Since this line brings within British control not only a very wide region of territory rich 

in gold mines, but the mouth of the Orinoco River, flowing well across the northern end of the 

continent and affording a base of operations from which the restless British advance could with ease 

and safety proceed, it is of the last importance that its authority and integrity from the earliest time 

should be maintained. 

Mr. Norman’s first discovery was that this is impossible, and he promptly published the fact. He 

obtained access in Washington to certain unpublished official correspondence between Great Britain 

and Venezuela between November, 1840, when Sir Robert Schomburgk was appointed to delimit 

the frontier of British Guiana, and April, 1842, when England removed the boundary posts by him 

set up. This correspondence showed the following facts: First, that Venezuela had promptly 

protested against the erection of these posts; second, that Lord Aberdeen had replied that “the 

demarkation so made was merely a preliminary measure open to future discussion between Great 

Britain and Venezuela,” and had subsequently declared that “the posts were not erected, as the 

Venezuelan Government appeared to apprehend, as indications of dominion and empire on the part 

of Great Britain”; third, that Lord Aberdeen had expressed pleasure at the assurance of the 

Governor of British Guiana to Venezuela that “Great Britain had not occupied Point Barima,” 

(commanding the mouth of the Orinoco,) and, finally, that the posts were in part at least removed, 

and without any condition as to the bearing of their removal on the British claim. The statement 

closes as follows: 

“If the above documents are genuine, and their source excludes suspicion, the Schomburgk line is proved 

worthless as a basis of any territorial claim whatever.” 

Commenting editorially on the subject, The Chronicle said: 

“We are bound to say, assuming, as we are bound to assume, the accuracy of our representative’s citations, that 

they vitiate Lord Salisbury’s second dispatch to Secretary Olney, and render it necessary for us to revise our whole 

view of the situation. Clearly, there can now be no question regarding the Schomburgk line as a ramrod thrust 

between Guiana and Venezuela. In a word, England and the United States have a way out. We look to the statesmen 

on both sides to enlarge it until there is found complete escape from a situation of the utmost peril.” 

Having thus done to his country the very great service of pointing out that the position taken by 

its Government, and which Lord Salisbury had practically declared would not even be discussed, was 

untenable, and therefore must not only be discussed at home and abroad, but ought in fairness to be 

opened to change, Mr. Norman proceeded to enlighten his countrymen as to the real nature and 

force of American opinion. Passing over certain deductions as to the relations of the East and the 

West, which are interesting but not conclusive, we call attention, and especially the attention of 

those who have chosen to regard the policy of the President as purely bellicose, to the following 

plain statement: 

“The Schomburgk line is now proved destitute of any quality of permanence, and it therefore remains to 

consider the situation as affected by its removal. I can affirm positively that the American Government is, above 

everything, anxious for arbitration. Whatever may have been its actual result, the intention of President Cleveland’s 

message was amicable. The close entourage of the President to-day scouts the idea that it was not a message of 

379

January 1896 

peace. But behind it has sprung up a National sentiment which it would be utter madness on the part of the English 

people to disregard or underestimate. The Monroe doctrine is not worth discussing. All the learned pamphlets, the 

professors’ opinions, and the newspaper discussions of it are labor lost. The fact is that if Venezuela does not come 

within the four corners of the Monroe doctrine, then the new doctrine, the Olney doctrine, covers it, and American 

opinion overwhelmingly favors its general principles. Moreover, America demands arbitration as a sacred right, and 

for this she will fight if needful.” 

Mr. Norman adds: 

“I am astounded at the depth and character of American feeling on this question. Men experienced, staid, 

elderly, conservative, many holding judicial positions of great responsibility, frankly declare their uncompromising 

support of this American doctrine. . . No greater mistake would be possible than for England to regard the message 

as a mere party manoeuvre. If this latter view gains acceptance, the consequences of the mistake may be awful. 

When I reflect on the possibility of this, and know what I know of American opinion, I am profoundly depressed. 

Arbitration is demanded by every consideration dearest to civilized mankind.” 

Mr. Norman recites the various ways in which arbitration can be reached: 

“1. An arrangement can be made with Venezuela, and he has assurance that that country would pay the 

additional indemnity demanded, express regret for the Yuruan incident, and request a renewal of diplomatic 

relations “if England would agree to a reference of the whole question to any competent tribunal she might select. 

“2. Lord Salisbury could offer to join English Commissioners to the American Commissioners. 

“3. Lord Salisbury can open negotiations on the report of the American commission should this suggest a prima 

facie case for discussion. 

“4. Lord Salisbury can submit the English case, if invited, to the American commission. “Here, again, 

arbitration appears the inevitable and natural result.” Mr. Norman concludes with these grave words: “By declining 

arbitration in any shape, Lord Salisbury is courting for England the ill will of two continents. Most weighty of all, 

and this is my most serious but confident conclusion, if he does, the American people will consider fighting the 

arbitration as fighting for peace.” 

It is a curious and not altogether pleasing fact that this sober and entirely truthful statement of 

the purpose of the President and of the real opinion of the American people must come as news, 

not only to Mr. Norman’s readers across the Atlantic, but a certain number who think themselves 

not the worst informed or least wise of the citizens old New-York. 


- 259 - 

THE ONLY PROPER POSITION 

A Republican Supports the President’s Attitude in the Venezuelan Controversy 


Permit me to say a few words upon the Venezuelan question. Though a Republican, I have 

always been a strong supporter of Mr. Cleveland. I consider his position, in his recent message, the 

only proper one, but I think the language of the last three paragraphs should have been more 

temperate, though they were written under great provocation. 

380


The friendly offices of the United States have throughout been offered to England in behalf of 

arbitration of the boundary line. Venezuela claims to the Essequibo River, but is willing to arbitrate. 

England claims almost to the Orinoco River, and is willing to arbitrate only a portion of the territory 

in dispute, claiming absolutely the Schomburgk line or territory about 150 miles west of the 

Essequibo River; her extreme claim being for territory about 350 miles west of the Venezuelan claim 

of the Essequibo. The propositions of compromise called the Aberdeen and Granville lines, while 

drawing back from the Schomburgk line in some places, crossed it, and went beyond in others; but 

both lines—while giving up some of the sea-coast, which was not of so much importance to 

England, as with the Island of Trinidad and her Guiana possessions and her fleet, she controlled the 

mouths of the Orinoco—advanced her territory westward of the Essequibo over 200 miles, and in 

the territory westward of the Schomburgk line 69 miles; drawing back at the coast, the Granville, 69 

miles, and the Aberdeen about 140 miles. These conditions are apparently the only answers Great 

Britain has vouchsafed to the kindly offices of one of the proudest, most civilized, and most just 

nations on the earth. One last request was made by the President to England. On July 20, 1895, the 

President says: “It is my wish to be made acquainted with the fact at such early date as will enable 

me to lay the whole subject before Congress in my next annual message.” This gave England four 

months in which to consider and reply. How does England treat a great nation she professes 

friendship for? Times her reply to reach the President about one week after Congress has assembled, 

and slaps the President and the American people in the face. Would this Nation have treated 

England so under any provocation? 

England to-day, with her ownership of the fortified Island of Trinidad, directly opposite the 

westward mouths of the Delta of the Orinoco, and with the possession of Barima, as now asserted 

by the Schomburgk line, controls absolutely the entrance to the Orinoco, a river belonging to 

Venezuela beyond dispute, and lying entirely, except its main mouth, in undisputed Venezuelan 

territory. The Orinoco River stretches westwardly through Venezuela, and, with the Apure, is 

navigable to the seventieth degree of longitude, or to a point 800 miles westward of the Schomburgk 

line. It has more than 400 navigable tributaries which traverse almost the entire territory of 

Venezuela. The Schomburgk line carries England beyond the first range of mountains, and her 

extreme claim carries her beyond the second range, and within twenty miles of the Orinoco River, at 

a point 140 miles westward from its mouth. It leaves but one other river or any importance to cross 

to reach the Isthmus, viz., the Magdalena. 

The French began the Panama Canal. They are again agitating its completion. American private 

enterprise started the Nicaragua Canal, made surveys and some preliminary construction. The hard 

times came, and several months ago our papers were full of the scheme to introduce a bill in 

Congress to have the canal built by, or its bonds guaranteed by the United States Government. 

Instantly the English papers notified us that the United States Government would never be allowed 

to own and possess the Nicaragua Canal. All inter-ocean canals should be neutral and their neutrality 

guaranteed by all the Christian nations of the earth, and not only the canals, but a zone around their 

entrances should also be neutral. I believe we have admitted the neutrality of the Nicaragua Canal 

under the concession. But the talk in the English papers came with a bad grace from a country that 

occupies Egypt against the protests of France, and controls the Suez Canal, built by the glory of 

Frenchmen. When England possesses the limit of her claims she will then she will then be in a 

position to gather an army that could sweep Venezuela; will not have a mountain range to cross, no 

difficult river, as she would control the Orinoco with her gunboats, and she would then have 

navigable rivers on which to transfer her army, supplies, and ammunition to a point over 800 miles 

381

January 1896 

west of the Schomburgk line, and within 500 miles of the Panama Canal, with the Nicaragua Canal 

only 276 miles further, and, owning the Island of Jamaica, be only 550 miles from the Atlantic 

entrance to both canals. When she should desire to conquer Venezuela, at her convenience, she 

would do so, and then be in striking distance of the two canals, with a base from which to strike. 

Lord Salisbury says that England does not want Venezuela’s territory, and wants to live on terms of 

friendship with her, but in the same dispatch says that the Monroe doctrine originated in England, 

that it has not been accepted as international law, and that times have changed. When the march 

across Venezuela begins—say, in 1910, or before—will the English Ministry at that time say, We did 

want to live on terms of friendship with Venezuela but the canals have been built and times have 

again changed? 

Is the United States justified in her fears of English aggression? Has England closed the 

Dardanelles against Russia, the greatest wrong of the nineteenth century? Since the President’s 

message, English papers have taunted us that we have forced England to abandon the Armenians to 

the fate that may await them, by our attack on England. We have not made any attack. What may 

happen to what is left of the Armenians results from our resenting England’s attack on us. What has 

happened to thousands of them lies at England’s door, and is partly owing to that jealousy of 

nations which we are trying to avoid on this continent, and primarily to England’s demand that the 

Straits should be closed to Russia. 

Did not England invite France to join her in the Egyptian occupation as a temporary measure, 

both nations to retire when their mission was accomplished? France, probably for good reasons, 

refused. Did not England go there alone? And now her mission is fulfilled, after France has over and 

over again protested, she refuses to retire, and the Suez Canal becomes an English canal. 

Does not England hold Gibraltar? A thorn in the side of proud Spain. 

Does not England hold the mouths of the St. Lawrence, an apparent threat to the great lakes of 

the United States, though it is not a real one? 

Does not England to-day command the mouths of the Orinoco and the entire inland navigation 

of Venezuela? And does she from this position, with Trinidad and Jamaica, threaten not only the 

French canal, but alike that of Nicaragua? 

Did England’s Mosquitoe protectorate mean the same thing? 

Have Japan and China no complaints? 

Did England force this country to arbitration on the seal industry, a willingness to destroy an 

industry forever that her colonies could procure a temporary money benefit? She had her legal 

rights, and arbitrators decided in her favor. To our shame, we have not paid the money. There was 

not precedent, but it could have been made one, and seal life preserved. No, the laws of God in seal 

propagation, and the friendship of this country, both set aside that British subjects might not be 

deprived of small and temporary profit, with the result that seat life will be extinguished. Are we in 

difference with the Alaskan boundary? These questions did not seem to come up when Russia 

owned Alaska—only when a friendly power owns it, a power that is so thoroughly pledged to peace 

that the world stands dumb when it shows fight. 

And what does the United States ask? Only arbitration, not an inch of territory. It is willing to 

give England all that in justice is hers, though it may be against our own interests. Willing to have 

another point added to the already long list of England’s strategic points on our long coast line, and 

the interoceanic canals, if she is justly entitled to it, just as we stand, calmly watching the gradual 

fading away of our seal industry, that a court of arbitration, on England’s demand of legal right, has 

given to her, for want of a precedent to save it. 

382


We are told that we, so far away, have no interest in a case that places a power practically within 

easy striking distance of the canals, the only waterway to be between our Atlantic and Pacific coasts, 

except around the capes, while seal industry must be destroyed in the temporary interest of a colony 

whose seat of Government is over 3,000 miles away from the home of the seal, and the intervening 

space not much more than a wilderness, and England herself over 6,000 miles distant from it. Shall 

the monument raised over the grave of the seal contain these words: “Sacred to the memory of 

England’s friendship and to the mistake of the Almighty in creating seal life and the laws of seal 

propagation in contravention of England’s inflexible international code?” 

The United States stands on a doctrine she considers necessary for the preservation of her 

National life. The moment European nations unite to dispute it, its necessity to us is shown. Only 

three other nations of Europe—Holland, France, and perhaps Spain—besides England, have any 

territorial interest on the mainland of this continent. Does Gibraltar tempt Spain to help fasten the 

iron heel of England on America? Will Egypt and the control of the Suez Canal tempt France to aid 

England in threatening a second French and the first American canal? Egypt and Cyprus, Venezuela 

and Jamaica. 

The storm of Dec. 18 does not mean hatred to England. Until then the Armenian question was 

the burning question of the hour. The American heart was close to England, and American wish was 

that the white squadron, side by side with England’s flag, could force the straits, and with shotted 

guns stop Turkey’s outrages. It was England’s isolated position that drew the American Nation 

toward her. Innocent even of suspicion, came the awakening to the fact that England had spurned 

Americas peaceful offers and had snubbed us. 

War there cannot be. The men who made the charge at Balaklava, the most sublime exhibition at 

bravery the world has ever seen, do not withdraw from a false position train from fear. The men 

who held the heights at Gettysburg and the men who charged up to the guns where the line of 

human bravery merged into that at death are brave enough to retreat whenever they realize a false 

position. Withdraw, England, from your untenable position of not arbitrating anything behind the 

Schomburgk line, depending upon prescription rights and colonization against only word of protest 

from a nation that has probably one gun to your one thousand to back its protest. And let the 

United States withdraw from its utterly untenable position that it shall be the arbitrator, if that is its 

dictum. 

Oh! England, do not let our financial difficulties, nor our troubles here, nor our weakness tempt 

you to do a wrong, tempt you to refrain from what is right and just. The men of the North who 

poured out treasure and life to free the slave, and the men of the South—“the footsore Confederate 

soldiers, who turned their faces southward from Appomattox in April, 1865, ragged, half starved, 

heavy-hearted, enfeebled by want and wounds, having fought to exhaustion”—these are not the 

men who trade their country’s cause for gold. 

And England, “times have changed”. The days of wooden vessels and low-power guns have 

passed away. The time for England’s fleet and England’s strategic positions, and that system that has 

justly excited the wonder of the world, to rule the earth, is passing also. They are among the glories 

at the English Nation. The days when a reputation for aggression and oppression add to a nation’s 

strength and wealth will soon be a thing of the past. The day of iron-clad, high-power guns, and high 

explosives is with us. The day present is the day of arbitration and of peace. The god of war is giving 

way to the god of right and justice. You have isolated yourself. You have gradually affronted every 

nation until only one was left, and her you have just struck. Would it not be well to abandon old 

lines and take the higher ground? Is not the friendship of nations better than their hate? We have 

383

January 1896 

been looking forward friendly and sorrowfully to your day of trouble we knew must come if you 

continued as of old, thankful only that we should not have a hand in it. The question of the 

Dardanelles, Gibraltar, and of Egypt is for you to determine, not for us to counsel. But keep Guiana, 

for it is yours by right, and take all of the disputed claim that arbitrators will give you and welcome. 

Demand that all interoceanic canals shall be neutral and respect It. Keep your strategic positions on 

our Atlantic coast, for you own them. Keep Canada, for it is yours, and it will be safer to you in the 

friendship of the United States than if it bristled with English cannon and was defended by the 

heroes or Inkerman. 

But should it be different, and nations nearer your island home than we are come in conflict with 

your aggressive policy, and war ensue, the struggle will be awful. We may not be there to help, for 

we are bound to others by bands of friendship in our days of trouble, and our own backs have 

smarted—though our sympathy will be for you. And should you meet with misfortune and the hand 

be laid too heavily on your shoulder, you might find the white squadron by your side with shot and 

shell to stay the hand of the oppressor. 

It would not be the first time that parent head has pillowed on the bosom of a sturdy child in 

time of trouble, and found the strong, vigorous arm entwined around her. If you call this hate, what 

is friendship? 

T. R. 

New-York, Jan. 4, 1896. 


- 260 - 

NO REBELS IN VENEZUELA 

Every Man a Patriot and Standing by President Crespo 

PEACE PREVAILS IN THE COUNTRY 

Statement Made by Ex-Minister Peraza—English Colonial Office Denies 

That Cannon were Sent to Cuyuni 

Bolet Peraza, ex-Minister from Venezuela to the United States, who is now in New-York City, 

emphatically denies that there is a revolution in his country. He says the report that rebels in 

Venezuela had formed an alliance with the English is absurd. 

My information,” said the ex-Minister yesterday, “shows that the country is in complete peace. I 

have had no advices by cable, but if such a state of affairs existed as is reported, we certainly would 

have heard of it. Venezuelan newspapers of Dec. 30, to hand, contain no mention of even a possible 

revolutionary disturbance. Every one of my countrymen is heartily satisfied with the action of the 

United States and our own Government, and the people are now awaiting patiently, though, of 

course, anxiously, the result at the deliberations of the commission appointed by President 

Cleveland to determine the exact boundary line between British Guiana and Venezuela. 

“I am sure President Crespo or Congress will take no action on this question without first 

consulting the Government of the United States. Venezuela is thoroughly aware of its 

responsibilities before the whole civilized world in the impending dispute. The United States listened 

to our appeal, and nobly upheld our rights. Under the circumstances, the acts attributed to some 

384


Venezuelans in these sensational dispatches are not alone discreditable, but an insult to our common 

sense and patriotism. 

“The report of an alliance between the rebels of Venezuela and the British is to me absurdly 

ridiculous. There is no revolution in Venezuela to-day. The country, to a man, is now with President 

Crespo. Internal strife has been abandoned, and all factions have rallied to the Government’s 

support in the present crisis. I do not believe Venezuela harbors a citizen so base or degraded who 

would be guilty of such a treasonable act as treating with Britishers against Venezuela. 

The home Government and the United States have the support of the whole of Venezuela today.” 

CANNON NOT SENT TO CUYUNI 

Story Printed in a New-York Newspaper Denied 

LONDON, Jan. 9.—The Colonial Office has issued a note, declaring that the statement printed 

in a New-York newspaper to-day, in an alleged cable dispatch from Caracas. Venezuela, that British 

troops, with cannon, have arrived at Cuyuni, is absolutely unfounded. 

SAYS THERE IS NO REBELLION 

Venezuela Minister Andrade Claims Peace Prevails in His Country 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 9.—The Venezuelan Minister, Señor Andrade, discredits the rumored 

revolutionary movement reported exclusively by cable to a New-York newspaper which, he claims, 

has always been inimical to Venezuela, and which has so bitterly opposed President Cleveland’s 

action in that country’s behalf. The Minister points to the coincidence that the cablegrams alleged to 

have been detained in transit through Cuba are received simultaneously with the arrival of the 

overdue mail steamer from La Guayra, and declares that he attaches no importance to these 

dispatches, except that they confirm his belief that alleged exclusive cable news to this newspaper 

was invariably unreliable. 

Señor Andrade’s official mail from Caracas reached him this morning, and it showed that the 

entire country was united in its enthusiasm over President Cleveland’s message on the boundary 

dispute. 

Whatever revolutionary sentiments existed before that time were utterly dispelled by the great 

national joy over President Cleveland’s utterances, and never had the people been more united. 

Minister Andrade is confident that the would have been notified by cable if any such alarming 

condition of affairs had suddenly arisen as reported, and the message would not have been sent by 

way of Cuba if subject to delay there. 

Regarding the reinforcement of the British Guiana police station on the Venezuelan frontier, the 

Minister said this probably related to the orders which, it was reported, were issued by the British 

Guiana Legislature, with Mr. Chamberlain’s advice, last October, to send more police to the Cuyuni 

station, which was situated on the eastern point of the confluence of the Uruan and Cuyuni Rivers. 

It was in this vicinity that the Uruan incident occurred, for which Great Britain was reported to have 

demanded an indemnity and sent an ultimatum. It was said at that time that a Maxim gun and 

several men would he sent to that point, and doubt was expressed that a Maxim gun could ever be 

transported to that point, as no roads lead through the country and the way is considered practically 

impassable. 

385

January 1896 

It was well known, at any rate, that it would take over a month to reach the spot from Demerara, 

and in the meantime Venezuela had plenty of time to reinforce its guard on the west side of the 

Cuyuni, opposite the British post, which had been stationed there since 1892. Unless the British 

crossed the river, which they had hitherto refrained from doing, there would probably be no 

collision between the two forces. The Venezuelans would, however, undoubtedly resist any 

encroachment on their undisputed territory. 

[10 January 1896] 

- 261 - 

GENERAL ARBITRATION DESIRED 

Members of Foreign Affairs Committee Send Their Views to England 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 9.—Henry Norman, the special commissioner of The London Daily 

Chronicle in Washington, cables his paper to-day as follows: 

“The sentiment for arbitration is a ball which, once set rolling among a civilized people, cannot 

be stopped. I take it for granted that in some manner arbitration in the Venezuelan dispute is 

certain. Therefore my work here is done. But that this temporary evil may prove the germ of a great 

good, I have desired to add a fresh impetus to the wider movement. 

“Now, President Cleveland and Mr. Olney preserve absolute silence, deeming their official 

positions incompatible with unofficial speech. Who, after them, represents the weightiest influence 

on American foreign affairs? Obviously the members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Accordingly, I have been at pains to-day to learn the 

opinions at these gentlemen, and the results I have obtained will, I feel assured, be equally gratifying 

and potent in England. One member of the Senate Committee, Roger Q. Mills of Texas, I was 

unable to find. But with this single exception I can present you with the views of the entire 

committee. 

To each member I put this question: “Would it, in your opinion, be well for the Governments of 

the United States and Great Britain to endeavor to agree upon the constitution of a permanent court 

or tribunal of arbitration, to which all questions at issue between the two Governments, not 

involving National autonomy or honor, should be submitted for decision when diplomatic 

negotiations fail? 

First, of course, I called upon Senator Sherman, the veteran Chairman of the Senate committee, 

a man whose career and personality have won the profoundest regard of his fellow-citizens, and 

whose words should receive deep respect in England. He replied: 

“‘Yes, you may quote me as strongly as you like in an affirmative reply.’ When I requested his 

own words for publication, he said: ‘I am in favor of the principle or arbitration for all questions that 

do not involve the autonomy of either of the two countries. I hope that the two Governments will 

agree upon such a mode of settlement for all controversies.’ 

“Senator Sherman added that in his opinion Parliament should pass a resolution requiring the 

Ministry to take steps in this direction. Then, in turn, I called upon every member of the committee. 

The following opinions were given me by each with authority to publish them: 

386


“Senator William P. Frye of Maine— ‘Two Christian nations so closely allied, and speaking the 

same language, surely ought not to resort to arms for the settlement of any difficulties involving 

anything less than their sacred national honor. I am decidedly in favor of arbitration.’ 

“Senator C. K. Davis or Minnesota – ‘I should approve of a convention between the two 

countries to the effect that all controversies not involving the honor of either, or the established 

policy of either, should be referred to a tribunal of arbitration, to be constituted by the parties as the 

controversies arise, so far as the personnel of that tribunal is concerned, the convention providing in 

a general way that such tribunals should be established for each particular case as occasion for it 

might present itself.’ 

“Senator Don Cameron of Pennsylvania— ‘The principle of arbitration is both wise and 

humane, and the adoption of it by the two great English-speaking nations of the world would have 

great influence upon other civilized nations. It would be well at this particular time, for both 

America and England to consider the subject seriously and practically, and I hope this will be done.’ 

“Senator Shelby M. Cullom of Illinois— ‘The time has come in the history of the world when 

great nations should settle all controversies between them by arbitration and not by war. I should 

rejoice if practical steps were taken by both Governments to this end.’ 

Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts— ‘I am, of course, in favor of settling the 

Venezuelan question by arbitration, and I believe equally that all questions which can properly be 

disposed of by arbitration should be dealt with in that way by two such nations as the United States 

and Great Britain, and, if possible, by some general arrangement.’ 

“All the foregoing are Republicans. The following are Democrats: 

“Senator John T. Morgan of Alabama— ‘I am in favor of the principle of international 

arbitration in settlement of disputes that properly fall within the purview of that method of 

settlement. I am in favor of the organization, by consent of what I may call the Christian powers, 

and of all other powers that can be induced to enter into the agreement, of a court or board of 

arbitration to which the Governments would agree that questions of the sort indicated should be 

submitted after the failure of diplomatic efforts to settle them; the personnel of such a board to be 

selected on each occasion that arises by agreement between the two contending powers, and, failing 

such agreement, they should agree upon a neutral power with authority to name the members of the 

board.’ 

“Senator George Gray of Delaware referred me to his words, which I recently cabled, as 

covering the question, adding the assurance of his entire sympathy. 

“Senator David Turple of Indiana— ‘I think the constitution of a tribunal mutually appointed 

and agreed upon by the Governments of the United States and Great Britain, to which could be 

referred disputed questions between the two powers, other than those relating to their autonomy 

and national sovereignty, would be of great service, not only to the two nations interested, but also 

to mankind, who would accept such action as a model to be followed and an example to be 

imitated.’ 

“Senator John W. Daniels of Virginia— ‘I would regard it as a great achievement and in 

harmony with the aspirations of the two peoples, their mutual interests, and their closer friendship. 

All my mind goes forward to the belief that it would be well to create such a machine.’ 

“Except for the accidental absence of Senator Mills, the above are the sentiments of the entire 

Senate committee. 

“The House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs consists of nine Republicans and 

six Democrats. The time at my disposal, the House having adjourned early, did not permit me to see 

387

January 1896 

each member personally. But Robert H. Hitt of Illinois, the Chairman, is a veteran diplomatist, 

having been Secretary of the American Embassy in Paris and for years the Assistant Secretary of 

State here. 

“Him I found most sympathetic. Replying to the above question, he said: ‘It would be the best 

work they could do for the two nations and for mankind. And it should, if possible, be made to 

imply, if not pledge, their endeavor to so settle all the disputes they have, not only with one another, 

but with all other nations.’ 

“I asked if I might regard him as expressing the sentiments of the entire committee, and he said: 

‘Not only of the committee, but of the whole House of Representatives. For the conciliation of 

interests and the wise search for right results we are all agreed here.’ 

“He told me how Gen. Grant, the greatest fighting President America has ever had, and whom 

he accompanied officially during his European trip, never lost an opportunity to urge crowned heads 

and Prime Ministers to adopt arbitration instead of war. President Grant was keenly interested in the 

treaty of Washington of 1871, by which all outstanding differences were arbitrated, and it was chiefly 

owing to his zeal that this treaty was brought about. 

“The above represents the weightiest body of opinion that could possibly be secured in the 

United States. In it there is not a single dissenting voice, and these are the men to whose 

consideration any question between England and America would be first submitted and by whose 

decision the Senate and House would probably be guided. It is Impossible to believe that British 

sentiment will not be moved to respond to such remarkable unanimity and such enlightened 

utterances. If not, then the world will see that America is ahead of England in the most striking 

characteristic of a civilized people. 

“I must add that the expressions of opinion at the Capitol towards The Chronicle’s work in 

explaining American sentiment were of such a cordial, and, indeed, flattering nature, that you would 

not desire me to publicly repeat them. 

“It is cabled to-day that the British Guiana police have occupied the extreme limits of the 

territory claimed by Venezuela. The American Government has brought heavy pressure to bear to 

prevent the Venezuelan Government from committing any overt act and thus precipitate a hostile 

situation. Therefore it is imperatively necessary that the British Government instantly deny and 

repudiate such a monstrous and fatal act as the armed occupation of territory while the question of 

arbitration is pending. 

“My work here is done. I propose to leave Washington immediately. The Schomburgk line is 

now abandoned. The English public, understanding the American attitude, has changed its own 

attitude, and nothing blocks the way to a prompt settlement, not only of the Venezuelan, but of all 

other matters, and they are numerous, now pending and creating international discord, and thereby 

placing our relations upon an amicable footing for the future. My last words shall be, and they must 

surely express British, no less than American sentiment, that the nation desiring arbitration is in a 

civilized attitude, and that the nation refusing it is in an uncivilized attitude.” 

[10 January 1896] 

- 262 - 

RESOLUTIONS IN CONGRESS 

388


An Overhasty Representative and a Pushing Senator from Kansas 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 9.—The publication of dispatches in a New-York newspaper, 

representing that the British had sent an armed force out upon the Venezuelan border, and that 

there was a serious revolution in Venezuela, aided and abetted by the British, was the cause of the 

introduction in the House to-day of a somewhat fiery resolution by Mr. Livingston of Georgia. If 

Mr. Livingston had waited a day he would have learned that there was absolutely nothing in the 

alarming report of warlike operations in the disputed territory. His resolution is as follows: 

That the President of the United States is hereby requested to forthwith ascertain whether Great Britain is 

advancing her outposts on the territory in dispute between her colony of British Guiana and the Republic of 

Venezuela, or is reinforcing posts heretofore established, with troops, police, or ordnance, and should the President 

become cognizant of the fact that a British military or police force is advancing to invade or reinforce, or since the 

17th day of December last has invaded or reinforced posts formerly occupied within said disputed territory, he 

demand the immediate withdrawal of said soldiers and the reduction of the police force in said territory to not a 

greater number occupying the British outposts on the aforesaid 17th day of December, 1895. 

Mr. Boutelle (Rep., Me.) objected to consideration of the resolution, and it went to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

Another Venezuelan resolution was introduced in the Senate by Mr. Baker of Kansas, 

reaffirming the Monroe doctrine and making additions thereto. Mr. Baker does not accept the 

Senate tradition that new members of that body should not be heard except on roll calls, for a year 

at least after having sworn in. He had a good deal to say yesterday in the Republican Caucus, and today 

he attracted considerable attention his advocacy at his resolution. He is in favor of war if 

necessary to maintain the principles of the Monroe doctrine. 

Mr. Baker’s resolution is as follows: 

Resolved, That the United States of America will regard it as an unfriendly act for any foreign power, without 

our consent, by war, treaty, purchase, or otherwise, to extend its territorial limits in the Western Hemisphere, on 

either of the American continents, or to, or over, any of the islands adjacent thereto, which this country seems 

necessary or proper for its self-preservation. And the United States of America reserves the right to be sole judge of 

this necessity. 

Resolved, That the principle herein enunciated is founded upon the law of self-preservation which from 

necessity, adheres in, and belongs to, every civilized nation as a sovereign and inalienable right; and this principle is 

attested by Washington’s farewell address and by President Monroe’s ever memorable message of Dec. 2, 1823. 

In closing his speech, Mr. Baker declared that the United States would maintain the position 

announced in his resolution by war, if necessary, in order that peace might come. 

“We shall not,” he said, “invite or provoke war. The justice of our cause will challenge and 

command the admiration of the civilized world; but, if it does come, we will triumph in a cause 

which history will bless; and when the shock of fierce contending armies shall be heard no more, 

then we shall behold greater America, united, prosperous, and free, still the wonder and marvel of 

the world, matchless an unconquerable.” 

The resolution was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. 

[10 January 1896] 

389

January 1896 

- 263 - 

A CONFERENCE PROPOSED 

Lord Playfair’s Plan for Settling the Venezuelan Dispute 

ARBITRATION THE END IN VIEW 

The London Post Indorses the Suggestion of The London Times for a Full 

Statement of the British Claim 

LONDON, Jan. 10.—The Chronicle to-morrow will publish the report at an interview with Lord 

Playfair, in which he suggests that a conference be held between American and English delegates for 

the purpose of defining the Monroe doctrine and of carrying through a system of arbitration. 

The Morning Post tomorrow, will say it believes the suggestion made by The Times that red tape be 

laid aside by the Government and a statement made of the British claim anent the Guiana frontier 

dispute, would be supported cordially by the people of Great Britain. 

In an interview to-day N. G. Burch, the Venezuelan Consul here, said that if the United States 

wished to make the Venezuelan High Commission unassailable it should appoint one or two 

European members, because of the necessity of an exhaustive study of European archives. 

Mr. Burch said he was inclined to believe that the present situation would lead to an interchange 

of ideas that would result in the resumption of diplomatic relations between Great Britain and 

Venezuela. He added that it was obvious that a war would be very disastrous to Venezuela, even 

though Venezuela should be backed by the United States. 

He did not believe, however, that the United States would be so ill-advised as to make Venezuela 

the scene of war, for in that case the protection of the United States would be disastrous to the 

country’s interests, whatever might be the result of the conflict. 

He was of the opinion that the intervention of the United States would conduce to an intelligent, 

mutual understanding between the disputants for a specific settlement. 

[11 January 1896] 

- 264 - 

THE ESSEQUIBO THE BOUNDARY 

Old Maps, an Authority in England, Show This the True Line Between 

Guiana and Venezuela 

M. Carey & Sons of Philadelphia published, in 1821, an atlas which was a reproduction, 

essentially, of a London work edited by M. Lavoisne. In 1823 H. C. Carey and I. Lea, the successor 

of M. Carey & Sons, published an American atlas, the maps, with the exception of the United States, 

following closely after Lavoisne’s Atlas. The New-York Times reproduces a map from each atlas, in 

both of which the Essequibo River is given as the boundary between Dutch Guiana and Spanish 

Guiana. Lavoisne’s atlas was considered in England, at that day, a good authority, as the large 

number of editions it went through shows. Not alone in a geographical sense, but historically, this 

atlas was accepted as an authority. 

390


In the historical part of Lavoisne’s atlas Guiana is described as follows: 

“Guyana—This name belongs to the great extent of country between the mouths of the Orinoco and the 

Amazon, which was formerly divided into Spanish, Dutch, French, and Portuguese Guyana. Spanish Guyana now 

forms part of the Republic of Venezuela, Portuguese Guyana is comprehended within the Kingdom of Brazil, 

Dutch Guyana, or as most frequently called, Surinaum, extends from the Essequibo to the Maroni. . . French 

Guiana, or Cayenne, extends along the coast from the Maroni to the Oyapuk.” 

Any student of history can thus clearly see that the rivers in each instance formed the boundary 

lines. By reference to the map, though, it will be seen that a small part of the territory of Dutch 

Guiana extended to the westward of the Essequibo and was defined by a line drawn from Cape 

Nassau to a point on the Cuyuni or Guayani River, a short distance above its junction with the 

Essequibo Venezuela lays claim to this small piece of territory, and the text of Lavoisne’s atlas bears 

out its claim. 

It may be noted though, that none of the gold mines are found in this small strip. The 

exceedingly valuable gold mines of the eastern part of Venezuela are located south of the Cuyuni 

River and between it and the Mazaruni. These mines have been “exploited by the authority of the 

Governor of British Guiana,” as officially expressed in a bulletin of the Venezuelan Government, 

being on the British side of the so-called Schomburgk line. The small piece of territory above 

described not being of special value it is doubtful if either party to the controversy would make 

strenuous claim to it as such. 

But Venezuela will undoubtedly interpose strong objections to any occupancy of territory by the 

English on the west bank of the Essequibo, at or near its mouth, on the ground that such occupancy 

would give control of the river. Thus Venezuela would be deprived of means of access to that great 

extent of her territory which form the bulk of what was known as Spanish Guiana. This territory is 

all drained by the tributaries of the Essequibo, which all flow into that river from the west, or 

Venezuelan side, there being none from the east, or British Guiana side. It is thus obvious that in 

taking the Essequibo River as the boundary, it was the intent to give access to the country drained 

by its tributaries. Part of this country is even outside of the boundary claimed by England, and it is 

practically valueless, unless access can be had to it by means or the Essequibo and its tributaries, the 

only practicable means possible. 

[12 January 1896] 

- 265 - 

NEW LIGHT ON THE BOUNDARY 

England’s Claim in Venezuela Again Proved Without Foundation 

BURLINGTON, Vt., Jan. 13.—Seneca Haselton, ex-Minister to Venezuela, has furnished The 

Free Press a statement regarding the boundary of Guiana, in which he gives new facts bearing upon 

the point of legitimate jurisdiction over the territory at the mouth of the Orinoco River, now 

occupied by the British. He quotes from the works of Robert Montgomery Martin, published in 

1834-5 after about ten years of travel and research, entitled the “History of the British Colonies,” in 

391

January 1896 

the preparation of which he had the assistance of many public officials and numerous other men 

resident in England and the colonies. 

The colony of British Guiana Is carefully treated. Its western boundary is situated somewhere on 

the coast between the Pomeroon River and the Barima River. The colony is further described as 

extending about 200 miles along the coast westward from the Coventy River and so, by inference, 

stopping considerably east of the mouth of the Barima. The Parish of Trinity, the most westerly of 

British Guiana, is described as extending to the Pomeroon River, and “as far as the British 

settlements extend.” 

The author had apparently never heard that any one claimed that British Guiana extended to the 

Amacoio. He describes the colony, it may be added, as lying to the eastward of the sixtieth parallel 

of west longitude, a description which distinctly excludes Point Barima. In 1836-7 Mr. Martin was 

given access to the Blue Books and to other official sources of information, with a view to the 

preparation of a work compassing the end desired by the House of Commons. The author’s right to 

designate his work as official was unquestioned. But, in the “History of the Colonies of the British 

Empire,” published in 1836, the boundaries of Western British Guiana are again stated as in the 

earlier work. 

When Mr. Martin began his researches not more than ten years had elapsed since the cession 

from Holland to England of the colonies which constitute British Guiana, and when the history 

appeared twenty-five years had passed since the transfer of 1814. The actual extent of Dutch 

occupation was to Mr. Martin and Sir Robert Keer Porter a matter of comparatively easy 

determination, and the discovery of new evidence of an unambiguous character is necessary to 

warrant a more extensive British claim at this day that was made in the years 1830 to 1840. 

“The British right to the entire territory embraced within the Schomburgk line is,” Mr. Haselton 

says, “open to serious question. The occupation In 1855 of Point Barima, at the mouth of the 

Orinoco, was on the fact of it and act of aggression upon the territory of the American republic, and 

in view of the traditional and well-known policy of this country, the refusal to submit the right to 

such occupation to the judgment of impartial arbitration cannot be regarded but as an act of 

unfriendliness to the United States. Lord Salisbury did not in his reply to Secretary Olney refuse in 

precise terms to submit any territory within the Schomburgk line to arbitration, and the way to an 

impartial determination of existing British rights seems yet open.” 

[14 January 1896] 

- 266 - 

LORD SALISBURY’S POLICY 

The semi-official announcement made in The London Standard this morning, and which we 

published yesterday, is extremely important. The significant part is as follows: 

Urged by friendly public opinion in the United States to place before the world as soon as may 

be the British case as regards the controversy with Venezuela, the Cabinet on Saturday decided to 

respond to this amicable invitation by publishing the material documents in its possession bearing 

thereon. . . 

392


“Lord Salisbury, as we announce elsewhere, has decided not to wait for the meeting of 

Parliament, but will publish, as soon as they can be got ready, all the documents in his possession 

bearing upon the disputed boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela.” 

The explanation offered by The Standard for the action on the part of the British Government is 

the spirit in which the American people received the troubles that during the past fortnight have 

crowded on England from all parts of the globe. We have no doubt that this spirit has appeared very 

grateful to the English, as The Standard says, “at a moment when communities less generous thought, 

apparently, that a favorable opportunity had arisen for adopting a tone of insult, if not of menace.” 

But the “magnanimous attitude of the American Nation” ought not to have surprised our English 

friends. It was not only entirely consistent with the course at our Government regarding the 

Venezuelan question, but one essential motive of that course was a strong desire for the safe and 

permanent friendship of the two peoples. This became perfectly plain to Mr. Norman when he 

observed the people and the Government on our own shores. It is becoming plain to an increasing 

number of Englishmen on the other side of the Atlantic, and Lord Salisbury and his associates in the 

Cabinet appear to understand it. They are now realizing that all that the American Government 

from first to last asked was a fair, impartial determination of the rights of Venezuela and Great 

Britain, without the slightest intervention or influence by the United States. In that request there was 

manifest nothing but a friendly spirit 

When Lord Salisbury, possibly, and as now appears, probably, with defective information as to 

some important points in the history of the conduct of the British Government, saw fit to decline 

somewhat brusquely the request of the United States, Mr. Cleveland expressed very plainly his 

opinion as to what position the Government, should Congress concur, would take. The statement 

excited the people of both countries. But now that time has been given for the cooling of passion, 

and for the clearer perception of the actual elements of the situation, a new light has broken upon 

the mind of the English people and their Government. After their first hot assertion that the United 

States had “no interest” in the Venezuelan dispute, they have come to realize that across the ocean 

there was a powerful, stable, peaceful Nation which, without direct selfish interest, in the simple 

cause of justice to a weak neighbor, was capable of proceeding to extreme measures. That is a 

position which Englishmen can understand, and which in their hearts they are sure, so soon as they 

do understand it, to respect. Any difference arising from momentary misapprehension of the real 

purpose of the United States Government assumes an entirely changed character when that purpose 

becomes plain. 

The policy announced by The Standard as agreed upon by the British Cabinet is a manly 

manifestation of a friendly disposition, which will be cordially welcomed in the United States, and 

will strengthen the sentiment of mutual respect which the two peoples must in the long run 

entertain for each other. 

It is inevitable that on the American side this sentiment should find expression at the moment 

when England is facing the storm of jealousy, resentment, and possible animosity that has recently 

burst from all parts of Europe. We do not conceal from ourselves the elements in the character and 

in the policy of the English nation that have aroused these feelings. But we cannot forget that in the 

history of Europe the names of the English sovereigns Elizabeth and William and the commander 

and statesman Wellington, in his time greater than his sovereign, are associated with the rescue of 

Western Europe from three successive attempts at despotic rule. And there is too much English 

blood in our veins to permit us to think that a great people with whom we have been, or are, on the 

verge of a controversy, are to be despised or hated because by us they are not feared. 

393

January 1896 

[14 January 1896] 

- 267 - 

SALISBURY IS YIELDING 

The British Premier Making Advances to Venezuela. 

A JOINT COMMISSION PROPOSED 

The Boundary Dispute May Yet Be Referred to a Third Power for Settlement—Authors 

Acted Without Authority 

LONDON, Jan. 13.—It is learned upon good authority that Lord Salisbury is endeavoring, 

through a neutral power, to resume direct negotiations with Venezuela, proposing the appointment 

of a joint commission to delimit the disputed frontier. 

The joint commission failing to reach a complete agreement, the points in dispute are to be 

referred to a third power. 

The committee of the Society of Authors has examined into the circumstances of the issuing of 

the address of British literary men to their confreres in America; appealing to the latter to use their 

influence to prevent a war, and declares that the signers of the address are alone answerable. 

The use of the society’s paper, on which the address was issued, was unauthorized. The 

committee avows the friendly feelings of the society for the Americans, but says it is of the opinion 

that action in international questions does not belong to the society’s corporate powers. 

The Standard will tomorrow say it is pleased by the exchanges of diplomatic expressions of goodwill 

between the United States and Great Britain, and again argues that a way must be found to 

reconcile England’s view of her rights in Guiana with the sensibilities of the people of the United 

States. It will add: “It must be only a work of time to effect a satisfactory settlement. The simplest 

way would be a direct agreement with Venezuela. It is obvious that we should have the good-will of 

the United States in such a solution.” 

The Daily News reiterates the importance of finding an honorable escape from the Venezuelan 

difficulty, and says: 

“If things are allowed to continue as they are now, there may be a war, no matter how many 

excellent people may be horrified at the idea. Lord Salisbury has never declined to arbitrate. It was 

upon the scope, not the principle, of reference that he and Venezuela failed to agree. We believe that 

Lord Salisbury has clearly shown that Venezuela is in the wrong, but we are not impartial judges. 

The stronger the British case, the more eager should Lord Salisbury be to submit it to a competent 

court. Surely, we are willing to make a sentimental sacrifice for the sake of retaining the friendship of 

the United States. We expect something more from Lord Salisbury than an. argumentative victory 

on paper.” 

[14 January 1896] 

- 268 - 

VIEWS OF HENRY NORMAN 

394


What the London Correspondent Says of the Venezuelan Matter 

POORER CASE THAN ENGLAND THOUGHT 

Lesson Taught that There Is a Strong American Feeling to be Respected 

Henry Norman the assistant editor of The London Daily Chronicle, spent yesterday in this city. His 

recent work in Washington as special correspondent for his paper on the Venezuelan boundary 

question has given widespread prominence to his name. 

He was the first and last of the correspondents of English newspapers in this country who took 

the trouble to explore the archives of the State Department at Washington in order to see for 

himself what claims had been put forward by England and Venezuela, respectively, during the past 

fifty years in regard to the true boundaries of Guiana. One of the earliest results of his labors was to 

show how Aberdeen, the English Foreign Secretary in the early forties, had distinctly repudiated the 

line drawn by Sir Robert Schomburgk. In Lord Aberdeen’s phrase, this line was not meant as a 

permanent boundary, but as a tentative line to serve as a basis for future negotiations. 

Mr. Norman is a thin, wiry man, about five feet ten inches in height. His face has a hardy 

paleness, his nose is strong, his eyes are clear, a good gray color, and look you straight in the face. 

He wears a pointed Vandyke beard, and talks fluently and rapidly. He walked nervously, though not 

impatiently, across the floor of the parlor at the Waldorf, as he explained his mission to this country, 

and gave his views upon the present European situation to a group of reporters who had called 

upon him. 

“Two weeks ago,” he began, “The Daily Chronicle was alone among English papers in declaring 

the Schomburgk line to be absolutely without validity. The dispatches sent from Washington were 

the first knowledge which Englishmen in general had that the Schomburgk line had been repudiated 

as a definite boundary by a former Secretary for Foreign Affairs. 

“Everybody has now accepted this view, which is a great gain in the interests of peace. The 

Schomburgk line not having any special sanction is no longer a line to fight for. In other words, like 

most other questions of boundary disputes where the title is not very clear, the respective territories 

of Great Britain and Venezuela are peculiarly within the class of cases which can be properly settled 

by arbitration. 

“The London Times having come around to this view, as I see by this morning’s dispatches, simply 

means that the English Government has accepted this side of the case. You cannot make it too clear 

that The Times is nearly always inspired by the British Foreign Office. It has a peculiar and unique 

character in that everything about foreign affairs printed in it is read every day in every foreign office 

in Europe. While other London papers are, in a sense, its rivals, we are all rather proud of its 

position in this respect. So that if The Times puts forward the view that there is nothing sacred about 

the Schomburgk line, it means that the British Government has abandoned its former position as 

untenable.” 

Mr. Norman was asked what the effect of the President’s message to Congress was in England. 

“I was in England at the time.” he replied, “and it was certainly startling. The language of 

diplomacy is a peculiar tongue. When you want to declare war you use a peculiar phrase. The 

diplomatists of Europe read into Mr. Cleveland’s message more than I believe it meant to convey. If 

one European power had used such language to another the next day an order would have been 

issued for the mobilization of the troops. 

“Of course, we all know that Mr. Cleveland’s message meant nothing of this kind. I do not 

believe that it was in any sense of the term an electioneering move. At the same time, while 

395

January 1896 

American politics are what they are, any decided action on the part of the President must tend to 

strengthen or weaken the party in power. 

My candid opinion is that the English Government has since discovered that it has a poorer case 

than it thought it had. At the same time, the British side of the case is still known only to its Foreign 

Office, and I have no means of information about it different from any reader of the newspapers. 

“While the immediate effect of Mr. Cleveland’s message and Mr. Olney’s dispatch may have 

been to cause some little bitterness between England and the United States, I am convinced that a 

year hence the transactions will have the happiest outcome. It will teach English people that there is 

a public opinion in America entirely apart and distinct from that telegraphed to our papers from 

New-York City. 

“Opinion in this city is too much swayed by commercial considerations. Perhaps this has 

deluded Englishmen into thinking that Americans were altogether devoted to the pursuit of the 

almighty dollar. You may rest assured that Englishmen will never in future labor under this error. 

They will have proper respect for the sentiment of the United States, as a whole, on all questions 

affecting the territorial integrity of the Western Hemisphere, 

“One thing showed by the recent international episode is that you cannot get up a war feeling in 

England against the United States. Hatred of the United States simply does not exist in England. I 

am sorry to say that the converse of this statement is not true. There is a feeling of great hostility 

here in some quarters, especially in the younger generation. Perhaps, a good deal of it is due to the 

school histories where the two wars with England are part of the Nation’s glory. It is a very grave 

pity that the younger generations at the same race and with the same speech should be brought up 

with any feeling of antagonism to England.” 

. . . Mr. Norman will sail to-morrow morning by the White Star steamship Majestic. He was 

unexpectedly recalled to London just as he was about to take a well-earned month’s vacation in this 

country. 

[14 January 1896] 

- 269 - 

ABERDEEN’S “IMPORTANT LETTER” 

It Has Been Published Before and Was Not Worth Copyrighting 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 14. —Senator Cabot Lodge and other well informed persons on the 

Venezuelan question at the Capitol and elsewhere, are laughing over the copyrighted London cable 

of The Chicago Associated Press, purporting to transmit to American readers the text of an “important 

letter” of Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Fortique, of date Jan. 31, 1842. 

The absurdity of this alleged “discovery” will be at once apparent when it is mentioned that the 

substance of this letter is repeatedly quoted in Senate Executive Document No. 226, Fiftieth 

Congress, first session, laid before the Senate by Mr. Cleveland July 26, 1888, (Pages 77-183, and 

elsewhere,) and that the entire letter (which, by the way, The Chicago Associated Press misquotes) was 

read in open Senate by Mr. Lodge in his speech on the Venezuelan boundary question, Dec. 30, 

(Congressional Record, Page 420.) Why at this late day this ancient and well-known document 

should be copyrighted is as much of a mystery as the reason why some of the newspapers of the 

396


same organization on the 4th of last July applied for a copyright on a fac-simile reprint of the 

Declaration of Independence. 

“This letter,” said Senator Lodge this morning, “is not new to those who have studied the 

Venezuelan question. Nor does it in any measure strengthen the British case. The language of the 

letter of Lord Aberdeen is quite plain, and there can be no doubt about the meaning when he says 

that ‘her Majesty’s Government must not be understood to abandon any portion of the rights of 

Great Britain over the territory which was formerly had by the Dutch in Guiana.’ No one disputes 

the rights of Great Britain to that territory, but the dispute arises out of the encroachments on 

territory that the Dutch did not possess, and to which she had no claim. The letter simply adds to 

the strength of the case of Venezuela, and shows that at no time did the British Government claim 

what it is now claiming as English territory. 

“A few weeks later (after the Aberdeen letter of Jan. 31, 1842,) the marks referred to were 

removed. In other words, the British Government of that day disavowed the Schomburgk line, 

within which we are now told Great Britain cannot assent to arbitration. It requires half a century, 

however, to bring into clearer relief just what really was intended in reference to the Schomburgk 

line as a mere ‘preliminary step’ to future negotiations. Lord Aberdeen repudiated the Schomburgk 

line in 1841. In 1890 Lord Salisbury, then Prime Minister, repudiated the act of his predecessor, 

Lord Aberdeen. We can see in this way how that line from being the mere suggestion of an explorer, 

based on natural objects, has now become an immutable right beyond which discussion is out of the 

question. No new rights have come to England or to Venezuela since the declaration of President 

Monroe. They have the rights of Spain and Holland respectively, nothing more and nothing less, and 

are entitled to exactly what those inherited rights give them.” 

[15 January 1896] 

- 270 - 

GOV. HEMMING’S POWERS 

Report that He Is Authorized to Treat with Venezuela 

WILL SAIL FOR GUIANA FEB. 26 

Strong Movement In England in Favor of a General Arbitration Treaty 

with the United States 

LONDON, Jan. 14.—The Chronicle will say to-morrow it has reason to believe that Sir Augustus 

Hemming, the new Governor of British Guiana, will have authority to treat with Venezuela, if the 

latter wishes. He will sail for his post of duty Feb. 26. Thus there will be ample time for Venezuela 

to announce whether she desires to resume negotiations on the boundary matter, and whether she 

will send delegates to England. 

In reply to inquiries made at the Venezuelan Consulate here as to the truth of The Chronicle’s 

statement, it was said that the Consulate had no knowledge on the subject. It was added that the 

situation as affecting Great Britain and Venezuela had only assumed a new phase, and that the 

statement relative to the resumption of diplomatic relations between the two countries were mere 

rumors. 

397

January 1896 

In its issue to-morrow The Graphic will say it has authority to deny the report that Great Britain 

has offered money to Venezuela in return for the latter’s acceptance of the Schomburgk line as 

marking the boundary between Venezuela and British Guiana. 

The story is denied elsewhere. 

[15 January 1896] 

- 271 - 

ENGLAND MAY BE HEARD 

Venezuelan Commission Wants Evidence from Both Sides 

NOTICES SENT TO THE TWO NATIONS 

Britain Respectfully Asked to Furnish Proof of Ownership of Disputed Territory 

INVESTIGATION HOSTILE TO NO ONE 

Whatever the Decision, the United States Will Make No Material Gain— 

Justice Is Promised 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 20.—The members of the Venezuelan Commission met to-day at 11:30 

A.M, in their temporary quarters in the building partly occupied by the Inter-State Commerce 

Commission. Justice Brewer presided. The selection of S. Mallet Prevost of New-York as the 

executive officer of the commission was formally ratified. Mr. Prevost was not present, but it was 

stated that he would take hold of his duties next Wednesday. 

The commission gave out for publication the following letter addressed to Secretary Olney last 

week, inviting information from the two Governments chiefly interested in the boundary 

controversy: 

OFFICE OF THE VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D. C., Jan. 15. 1896. 

The Hon. Secretary of State. 

Dear Sir: I have the honor to state that the commission appointed by the President of the United States “to 

investigate and report upon the true divisional line between the Republic of Venezuela and British Guiana” has 

organized by the election of David J. Brewer as its President, and is entering upon the immediate discharge of its 

duties. 

In so doing, it has, after careful consideration, concluded to address you on the question of securing, so far as 

possible, the friendly co-operation and aid of the two nations which are directly interested in the now pending 

boundary differences. 

It must have suggested itself to you, as it no doubt has to the President, that this commission, thus authorized 

to ascertain and report the boundary line between two foreign nations, bears only a remote resemblance to those 

tribunals of an international character of which we have had several examples in the past. They were constituted by 

or with the consent of the disputants themselves, and were authorized by the parties immediately concerned to 

pronounce a final judgment. The questions at issue were presented by the advocates of the various interests, upon 

whose diligence and skill the tribunal might safely rely for all the data and the arguments essential to the formation 

of an intelligent judgment. Their functions were therefore confined to the exercise of judicial powers, and they 

might fairly expect to reach a result satisfactory to their own consciences, while it commanded the respect of those 

whose interests were directly involved. 

398


The present commission, neither by the mode of its appointment nor by the nature of its duties, may be said to 

belong to tribunals of this character. Its duty will be discharged if it will diligently and fairly seek to inform the 

Executive of certain facts touching a large extent of territory in which the United States has no direct interest. 

Whatever may be the conclusion reached, no territorial aggrandizement, nor material gain in any form, can 

accrue to the United States. The sole concern of our Government is the peaceful solution of a controversy between 

two friendly powers for the just and honorable settlement of the title to disputed territory and the protection of the 

United States against any fresh acquisitions in our hemisphere on the part of any European State. 

It has seemed proper to the commission, under these circumstances, to suggest to you the expediency of calling 

the attention of the Governments of Great Britain and Venezuela to the appointment of the commission and 

explaining both its nature and object. It may be that they will see a way, entirely consistent with their own sense of 

international propriety, to give the commission the aid that it is no doubt in their power to furnish in the way of 

documentary proof, historical narrative, unpublished archives, or the like. It is scarcely necessary to say that if either 

should deem it appropriate to designate an agent or attorney whose duty it would be to see that no such proofs were 

omitted or overlooked, the commission would be grateful for such evidence of good will, and for the valuable 

results which would be likely to follow therefrom. 

An act of either Government in the direction here suggested might be accomplished by an express reservation 

as to her claims, and should not be deemed an abandonment or impairment of any position heretofore expressed. 

In other words, and in lawyers’ phrase, each might be willing to act the part of an amicus curiae, and to throw 

light upon difficult and complex questions of fact, which should be examined as carefully as the magnitude of the 

subject demands. 

The purposes of the pending investigation are certainly hostile to none, nor can it be of advantage to any that 

the machinery devised by the Government of the United States to secure the desired information should fail of its 

purpose. 

DAVID J. BREWER, President 

To this communication Secretary Olney replied, stating that he had communicated the 

suggestions of the commission to Sir Julian Pauncefote, the British Ambassador, and to Minister 

Andrade, the Venezuelan representative, for transmission to their respective Governments. 

The commission then adjourned till Friday next, it being the understanding that Friday is to be 

the business day of the commission. The only employes so far determined upon are the Secretary, 

(or executive officer,) one stenographer, and a doorkeeper and messenger. 

The commission, finding that in New-England and elsewhere there are collections of ancient 

maps, desires it to be understood that any documents of this kind intrusted to them for their 

information will be carefully preserved and returned to the owners. 

[21 January 1896] 

- 272 - 

THE FEELING IN BRITISH GUIANA 

A Good Deal of Excitement Shown over the Boundary Dispute 

Special Correspondence to The United Press 

GEORGETOWN, British Guiana, Jan. 4.—A good deal of excitement is now shown here with 

regard to the boundary dispute, and the cable company’s office, where the public telegrams are 

399

January 1896 

posted daily, presents quite an animated appearance. Here and there groups of men assemble and 

discuss every scrap of intelligence which comes to hand, while many of the principal merchants have 

the messages copied by a clerk or porter as soon as it is possible to gain access to the board on 

which the bulletins are posted. 

It must be remembered that the population of British Guiana is what is known as a “mixed 

one”, and while the British section of the community places implicit confidence in the strength of 

the Imperial Government to assert her rights, or, at least, to take by might what territory she has 

claimed, subjects of other countries, who, perhaps, have more at stake, are not by any means so 

sanguine, knowing, as they do, that only the other day Great Britain doubted her right to the greater 

portion of the territory she now claims. 

Indeed, it was only after the auriferous wealth of the territory had been discovered that the 

Government raised the question as to whether it had a claim to the lands of the northwest districts 

and the upper reaches of the River Cuyani, while it is a notorious fact that while the gold fever was 

at its height, the Government of the colony, acting upon instructions from the Imperial 

Government, caused it to be clearly understood that all applications for mining licenses were granted 

and must be accepted upon the conditions that in the event of a settlement of the boundary 

question the land for which these licenses were granted might be found to be Venezuelan territory, 

and that no claim for compensation could be brought against the Government of British Guiana. 

At the opening of the legislative session on the 3d inst. the Administrator referred to the 

boundary question in the most guarded terms’. He said: “The Court at its meeting on Nov. 1 last 

year, with praiseworthy liberality and wisdom undertook to provide the funds necessary in case of 

emergency, to insure, as far as was in the power of this colony, the security of its borders and the 

maintenance of peace and order within its rightful possessions, and an undertaking was given by me 

in the name of the Government that only in case of necessity would use be made of that vote. In 

communicating the result of the Court’s deliberate action to the Secretary at State, this was clearly 

set out, and the position of affairs was held to necessitate a certain addition to the police force and 

its armament. Orders have, therefore, been received and issued to this effect, and on two separate 

occasions has the Minister expressed his satisfaction at the action taken by this honorable Court. 

Members will, I trust, view the events which have taken place since the vote was passed as rendering 

it necessary and expedient, for the present at all events, for this Government to maintain a certain 

reserve in treating this matter, and while I assure them that the Government will, as soon as 

possible, give them more explicit particulars in this connection, I would appeal to the sound sense 

and good judgment which characterized their deliberations to continue the confidence they have so 

willingly extended to the administration, on the assurance that it will be most carefully respected.” 

The subject was then allowed to drop. 

The following day Col. McInnis, Inspector General of the British Guiana Police constabulary, 

left Georgetown for the British outpost at Yuruan, on, it is reported, a visit of inspection, at the 

direction of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Col. McInnis is accompanied by Lieut. Godfrey 

Fawcett, a young sapper attached to the East Indian Corps, but who is here on some secret mission 

in connection with the Colonial Office; also by Dr. Boase of the Colonial Medical Staff, Mr. Michael 

McTurk, Magistrate for the Northwest District, and a number of other men. 

Within the past few days some eighty additional constables have been drafted from Georgetown 

to the northwest district of the contested territory, and the medical officers are now engaged in 

“passing” another hundred men on the military-police force, for service within the disputed 

territory. 

400


A report is current here that on Christmas Eve last, Mr. Michael McTurk, Magistrate, caused a 

large number of the United States flags to be taken down at Bartica, in the interior of this colony. It 

appears that the residents of Bartica had decided to decorate the streets in view of a visit of the 

Administrator, and among the decorations displayed, the Star-Spangled Banner was much in 

evidence. On the arrival of Mr. McTurk and Capt. Baker, Inspector of Prisons, the people were 

requested to haul down all the American flags, and this was done. The matter has created 

considerable dissatisfaction here, not so much from any importance to be attached to the display of 

bad taste, but as demonstrating the meanness of the mind that suggested it. 

[21 January 1896] 

- 273 - 

MUST NOT PROVOKE WAR 

Senator Wolcott Strongly Opposes the Davis Resolution 

COLORADO STATESMAN IS FOR PEACE 

The Monroe Doctrine Does Not Apply to the Venezuela Case— 

England Should Be Our Ally, Not Our Foe 

WASHINGTON. Jan. 22.—The Monroe doctrine had another inning in the Senate to-day when 

Mr. Wolcott made his promised speech in opposition to the position of the President and Congress 

on the Venezuelan boundary matter. 

The essence of Mr. Wolcott’s carefully prepared address is that the Monroe doctrine has no 

application to the controversy between Great Britain and Venezuela, that the National heart has not 

been fired by the President’s stand, and that it would be a good thing for civilization if Great Britain 

could increase its possessions in South America. 

Mr. Wolcott is always an entertaining talker, and to-day he invested his remarks with sufficient 

force and oratorical skill to entertain the many people who had gathered to listen to him. There was 

evident appreciation of his statement that the phraseology of the Davis resolution reported by the 

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations was objectionable and calculated to accentuate the strained 

relations now existing between the United States and Great Britain. Mr. Walcott’s views are not 

shared by any considerable portion of the Senate. 

Mr. Wolcott bad to wait until after considerable routine business had been transacted before he 

made his speech. He began by saying: 

The extraordinary message of the President of the United States, having reference to a dispute exclusively 

between Great Britain and Venezuela, both friendly powers, was practically indorsed by both Houses of Congress. 

The responsibilities, therefore, which his action may have entailed, rest as well upon the legislative as the Executive 

departments of the Government, and are equally shared by all political parties. The recommendations of the 

President that a commission be appointed to inquire into the points of difference between the two Governments 

concerned, and to enlighten this country as to the true divisional line separating Venezuela and British Guiana, were 

followed by Congress, and that commission, eminent in ability, and lacking only the joint sanction of the parties in 

interest, which sanction alone can give it vitality or usefulness, has only qualified. 

The resolution which the Committee on Foreign Relations has reported to this body, the effect at which may 

be, in my opinion, most far-reaching as affecting our policy and relations toward other and friendly Governments, 

requires some discussion and careful investigation before we commit ourselves to its declarations. 

401

January 1896 

Continuing, Mr. Wolcott contended that the so-called Monroe doctrine has been mis-applied In 

the pending controversy: that so much of President Monroe’s message as referred to the 

colonization of portions of America by European powers could have no applicability to any 

boundary dispute now existing in South America; that the hostility to the extension by European 

powers of their systems to any portion of this hemisphere, as expressed in that message, had especial 

reference to the systems of Government which were based on the divine right of Kings and which 

were directed to the overthrow of all republics wherever existing: that the Monroe doctrine was in 

no wise intended as insisting upon republican forms of government in this hemisphere, or as 

committing this Government to maintain the doctrine outside its own borders, or except as its own 

integrity might be affected; that this country is embarking upon a new and different policy from the 

one laid down by our fathers, and that from 1821 until now Congress has uniformly declined to 

define the so-called Monroe doctrine or to adopt it as a rule of action. 

He said existing conditions made it difficult to dispassionately discuss the Monroe doctrine at 

this time. It was not an easy or a gracious task to take a position which apparently involved in the 

slightest degree the abandonment of that patriotic fervor which animated the breast of every citizen 

where our National pride or our country’s honor was in question. There had been much tension for 

the past few weeks. The letter of the Secretary of State to Mr. Bayard was from a diplomatic point of 

view, almost incendiary. 

The President’s message glowed with the possibilities of war. Members of both houses of 

Congress, not to be outdone, followed the President’s suggestion as to the appointment of a 

commission with feverish haste. Just what the commission was to do, or how it was to do it, Mr. 

Wolcott added, nobody knew, but it had been created, and it now stood more a menace than a 

guarantee of peace. 

Fired the National Heart 

The efforts of the Government to fire the National heart had not been unavailing, nor was the 

work difficult. This country, he said, had had but two wars, except our own civil conflict and a war 

of conquest with the weak Government of Mexico. Both of them were with Great Britain, and, 

while the past eighty years had seen an entire readjustment of all our relations with the mother 

country, a readjustment which ought to make future war with her out of the question, there were 

still lurking some traces of the traditional resentment 

Mr. Wolcott entered into an exhaustive review of the origin and meaning of the Monroe 

doctrine and of its application by the United States. 

He added: 

Not only was the Monroe doctrine intended simply as a declaration of limited scope and purpose, but the 

circumstances under which it was given to the world were far different from that which now exist; and under 

present conditions its assertion and maintenance to the extent claimed by the President have largely ceased to be of 

paramount importance. It is essentially a doctrine of self-defense, promulgated for out own preservation and for no 

other purpose. 

The concern of President Monroe was not lest monarchies should be established in this hemisphere. He 

expressly recognized existing Governments and welcomed the empire of Dom Pedro in Brazil and Iturbide in 

Mexico as freely as the Governments of Bolivar; he protested not against despotic government, but against the 

forcible extension by the dreaded Holy Alliance in this Western world, of which he stood in well-grounded fear. The 

fear was then real and the danger threatening. To-day, how different the picture! We have helped ourselves to what 

land we needed; our own borders are defined, our Government eternally planted on the solid rock; our institutions 

402


free; our people intelligent and lovers of liberty and devoted to free institutions. No danger threatens us from 

without. We are menaced by no foreign foe. 

And vast as are our resources, intelligent as are our people, we possess an element of strength even greater than 

those advantages afford us; and that is that nobody wants us. We are not desirable subjects for other countries. 

There is not a nation in the whole world that would take one of our sovereign States a gift with its people. 

It is idle to talk seriously of our integrity or perpetuity being threatened by an adjustment of boundary between 

Great Britain and Venezuela. That which once seemed a danger and evoked the utterance of the Monroe doctrine 

has passed forever away, and has left nothing to vex us but the pride of expression to which we still cling. 

Then he spoke of the South American Republic in the severest terms. He said: 

Instead of developing into self-respecting republics, based upon law, advancing in morals and civilization, the 

people of South America have shown themselves so far, almost without exception, utterly unfitted for selfgovernment. 

Their so-called republics are largely and usually military despotisms based on force and relying on 

blood-shedding and assassination for their establishment and for their brief continuances, extending only until the 

ruler should have amassed from the oppression of the people a fortune sufficient to enable him to live in luxury in 

Europe when he escapes or abdicates, or until some other revolutionist shall be able by violence to seize the reins of 

government. The rulers are despots and suffrage a farce. 

There was no reason, Mr. Wolcott said, why the United States should help such people. He 

continued: 

Whatever of advancement and of progress for the human race the centuries shall being us must largely come, in 

my opinion, through the spread of the religion of Christ, and the dominance of the English-speaking peoples, and 

whenever you find both, you find communities where freedom exists and law is obeyed. Blood is thicker than water, 

and until some just quarrel divides us, which heaven forbid, may these two great nations of the same lineage, 

traditions, and tongue stand as brothers, shoulder to shoulder, in the interest of humanity, by their union compelling 

peace, and awaiting the coming of the day when “Nation shall not lift sword against nation, neither shall they learn 

war any more. 

Mr. Wolcott’s speech was applauded by the people in the galleries. 

Senhor Mendonca, the Brazilian Minister, was in the Senate Chamber during the delivery of the 

address. 

[23 January 1896] 

- 274 - 

CHAMBERLAIN ON GUIANA 

Great Britain Desires Only What She Possesses in America 

BLOOD IS THICKER THAN WATER 

Discussion over South America Might Be Diverted to Concerted Action 

in Behalf of the Armenians 

LONDON, Jan. 25.—The Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the Colonies, 

delivered a speech at Birmingham this evening. He congratulated the country upon having at the 

head of its affairs Lord Salisbury, whose judgment and resolution had placed him the very first 

among the European statesmen. 

403

January 1896 

Referring to the Guiana boundary dispute, Mr. Chamberlain said it had been trivial until it was 

suddenly elevated to grave importance by the intervention of the United States. There seemed to be 

some misapprehension on both sides. The opinion seemed to have prevailed in England that 

American statesmen wished to pick a quarrel while the Americans seemed to have thought that the 

British were disposed to impugn the Monroe doctrine, which they rightly held to be the most 

important to their own security. 

They also seemed to have thought that the British were disposed to deal in a harsh and arbitrary 

manner with the smaller State. He believed that the American people and all that is best in the 

United States would regard with horror a needless war with their own blood and kindred. He also 

believed that President Cleveland, whose acquaintance he had the honor of making while he was in 

America, and who had a high reputation for straightforward, honorable dealing, would never drive 

the two kindred nations to strife. 

On the other hand, the Americans could be assured from the utterances of Lord Salisbury and 

Mr. Arthur Balfour, the First Lord of the Treasury, that Great Britain had no desire for a single inch 

of American territory beyond what she already rightfully possessed. All that was necessary to settle 

the trouble was more time and fuller knowledge. 

Meanwhile he would re-echo and reciprocate from the bottom of his heart Wolcott’s noble 

words. “Blood is thicker than water.” [Loud cheers.] That would always be the sentiment of every 

Briton. The two nations were more closely allied in sentiment and interest than any others, and while 

the British looked with horror on anything approaching fratricidal strife, they looked with pleasure 

upon the possibility of the Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack floating together in defense of a 

common cause sanctioned by community of sentiment. 

He added that, while the Continental nations regarded the sufferings of the Armenians with 

comparative indifference, the United Kingdom and the United States felt the deepest sympathy and 

indignation. 

Mr. Chamberlain paid a tribute to the excellence of the American missions, and declared that the 

Americans were also interested in the sufferings of humanity for humanity’s sake, and not for any 

territorial ambition. Mr. Chamberlain concluded by saying: 

“Would it were possible that instead of wasting breath in a petty South American boundary 

dispute we could count on the powerful support of the United States in enforcing the 

representations which hitherto we have fruitlessly made in behalf of those who are suffering by 

Turkish tyranny and Turkish fanaticism.” [Cheers.] 

He concluded by declaring that the condition of Armenia was a danger and disgrace to Europe, 

but he did not believe that the resources of civilization had been entirely exhausted. 

Upon the conclusion of his address, Mr. Chamberlain was greeted with prolonged cheering. 

[26 January 1896] 

- 275 - 

GREAT WEALTH IN VENEZUELA 

Glowing Description of the Riches of the Disputed Territory on the 

Borders of British Guiana 

404


WASHINGTON, Jan. 27—The last number of The South American Magazine, published in 

London, contains a glowing account of the riches of the disputed territory on the borders of 

Venezuela and British Guiana. It states that but for the recent extraordinary action of the President 

of the United States, the immense value the colony would have remained comparatively unknown to 

the world, notwithstanding it contains some of the richest and most easily worked gold fields in the 

world. 

The colony, it is said, was within fourteen days of a pleasant steamship journey from England, 

and its population numbered 289,000, of which 12,000 were Portuguese and 4,000 were English, the 

balance consisting of negroes, Indians, and East Indian coolies. The climate of the country was 

extremely salubrious, and the great primeval forests contained immense stocks of valuable wood. 

Communication into the Interior was chiefly by means of steamships along the Essequibo. The 

country would probably prove to be the richest gold-producing country ever discovered. 

In 1884 a few negroes and Indians went into the interior and brought down 250 ounces of gold. 

In 1889-90 the exports of gold from the colony were 32,332 ounces, and in 1894-5 they amounted 

to 134,047 ounces, making a total production of raw gold in a little over ten years of upward of 

£3,000,000 sterling. Up to the present time alluvial gold had been the only gold produced in the 

colony; but now they were preparing to attack the reefs, and machinery for that purpose was being 

rapidly shipped. The property of the British Guiana Development Syndicate was served by a 

Government fleet of steamers, a waterway existing between their own port and Georgetown. Their 

property had produced some of the richest deposits of gold found in Guiana, and yet nine-tenths 

thereof was as yet comparatively unexplored. 

[28 January 1896] 

405

January 1896 

406


- Part 9 - 

February – April 1896 

407


408


- 276 - 

STANLEY SAYS WE’RE RIGHT 

The African Explorer Writes About the Venezuelan Boundary Dispute 

Henry M. Stanley, the African explorer, now a member of the British Parliament, has written a 

letter to Major J. B. Pond of this city, touching on the Venezuelan question. In the course of it, he 

says: 

Now, on this Venezuelan subject, I am entirely on the side of America, but I must admit that I am not surprised 

that the English papers backed up Lord Salisbury and differ from me. Taught by the virulent remarks of your 

journals, I had, of course, devoted much time to understand it, whereas English editors were exceedingly ill 

informed about the matter. Then there are two or three injudicious remarks in Olney’s dispatch which put British 

backs up, but after reflection it is wonderful how many have come round to my opinion that whatever the 

transgressions of Olney may be there is a great deal of justice in the American demand. I feel quite sure now that so 

much is admitted it will not be long before the opinion becomes general that we were in the wrong in refusing 

arbitration, while the more I think of Olney’s dispatch the more impressed I am that Olney could scarcely have 

written otherwise than he did. 

For I argue that had he contented himself with the usual suave tone of diplomacy he would not have succeeded 

in rousing the attention of the Nation to the necessity of settlement. His dispatch would have lain quietly buried in 

the archives of the Foreign Office, whereas now every Englishman knows sufficiently of the subject to distinguish 

right from wrong, and while there is still a majority who take the dispatch to be an affront to British dignity, there is 

a minority increasing in numbers who think that British honor would be best consulted by considering the justice 

done to Venezuela, and that British interests would be promoted by acquiescing with the American demand. 

Mr. Stanley assured Major Pond that there existed in England, in spite of the Venezuelan 

episode, only the friendliest feelings toward America. It would be a long time, though, he said, 

before England forgave the German Kaiser his dispatch to President Kruger on the Jameson 

capture. 


- 277 - 

THE VENEZUELAN QUESTION 

Great Britain Should, and Probably Will, Submit It to Arbitration 

The North American Review for February prints an able, conservative, and temperate review of the 

Venezuelan question by Mr. Andrew Carnegie, who was one of the United States delegates to the 

Pan-American Conference. Mr. Carnegie says: 

Great Britain has, therefore, necessarily acquired lands “by hook or by crook” in any part of the 

world, as the United States has acquired land adjoining her by just the same means. Our Indian 

treaties and subsidies, our Mexican war, would readily give us illustration, but with the United States 

we are not now concerned. It is from England’s similar policy we have to draw, and no finer 

illustration of the modus operandi can be given than her dealings with Venezuela. She begins 

409


modestly by claiming a boundary; Venezuela requests her to submit her claims to arbitration; this is 

refused; me matter rests a while, when it appears that the boundary of England has been shifted a 

good deal and embraces more territory adjoining Venezuela; another remonstrance from Venezuela, 

and another rest. When the question revives, Britain discovers she was mistaken again and did not 

claim enough, and her third claim extends far beyond the second. Finally, there is a fourth line 

drawn, which reaches over valuable auriferous deposits and really lands Great Britain on the banks 

of the Orinoco. 

This was rather too much, and Venezuela asked the good offices of the United States to beg 

Great Britain to submit the question to peaceful arbitration. This Great Britain agreed to do in 1885 

through Lord Granville. There would have been no Venezuela dispute had the doctrine of 

continuous foreign policy been adhered to, but the present Prime Minister of Great Britain, who is 

the one man wholly responsible for all that has occurred to embitter English-speaking men, actually 

refused to carry out the agreement of his predecessor to arbitrate the whole question. . . 

This is certainly one of the most flagrant exercises of brute force against a weak power which 

can be adduced to illustrate the propensity of the English-speaking race to absorb as much of the 

land of the world as it possibly can, and this policy in the case of Venezuela would have been 

triumphantly successful had the question remained one between the very weak Lamb and the very 

strong Wolf. I do not mean to hold Great Britain up to peculiar opprobrium. What the race in Great 

Britain would do, the race upon this side would do, and no doubt has done—although it is but just 

to say that the natural instinct leading to abrupt appeal to force is somewhat modified in the 

American, through inter-mixture of blood with races less strongly possessed of the dominating 

spirit. He offers arbitration. I present this instance of the powerful grasping from the weak, not as an 

English trait, but as a race trait. 

Successive American Governments have done their best, to bring Great Britain back to its 

promise to arbitrate, made by Lord Granville in 1885, but without avail. Secretaries of State Bayard, 

Blaine and Gresham, in successive Administrations, have gently intimated to Great Britain that this 

was the only honorable course she could pursue, and that the United States would be greatly pleased 

if she fulfilled her agreement. It was, therefore, impossible for President Cleveland’s Administration 

to turn its back upon the cause of weak Venezuela, even it had so disposed. Previous Governments 

having listened to her appeal, and being convinced of the justice of her request for arbitration, 

which, as we see, Britain had herself acknowledged, the United States was bound to call upon Great 

Britain for a definite answer, whether or no she were willing to fulfill her honorable engagement and 

submit her claims to an impartial judge for peaceful settlement, as she had agreed to do in 1885. 

The precise farm adopted in doing this does not touch the principle involved, but it is well 

frankly to admit that public opinion in the United States to-day favors the view that the menacing 

part of the President’s message had better been omitted. Asking Britain to carry out what she had 

agreed to do through Lord Granville, and standing for arbitration, the President’s position was 

impregnable, and bound to win. Had he stopped with asking Congress for authority to appoint a 

commission to ascertain the true boundary between Britain and Venezuela, solely for the guidance 

of the United States, the most potent part of his message as published would have been tenfold 

more potent, left to the imagination unsaid. . . 

Peaceful arbitration is the great gain of this century. It was my office to introduce to Mr. 

Cleveland, then President of the United States, as he is now, the delegation from the British 

Parliament urging arbitration. In the conferences I had with him previous to his receiving the 

deputation, I found him as strong a supporter of that policy as I ever met. I do not wonder at his 

410


outburst, knowing how deeply this man feels upon that question; it is to him so precious, it 

constitutes so great an advance over arbitrament by war that—even if we have to fight, that any 

nation rejecting it may suffer—I believe he feels that it would be our duty to do so, believing that 

the nation which rejects arbitration in a boundary dispute deserves the execration of mankind. 

It is only necessary for the people on both sides of the Atlantic to keep in mind that above all 

other considerations connected with this, in itself, most trivial dispute, there stands imperiled the 

Christian substitute of peaceful arbitration for barbarous war. The dangerous stage has been already 

reached and passed. There will be no war between the United States and Great Britain either upon 

the Venezuelan question or upon any other, because, the first has already planted itself upon the 

rock of arbitration, and the other is slowly but steadily moving toward its acceptance. 

No Government can live in Britain which dares squarely to persist in rejecting arbitration in a 

boundary dispute upon the American continent. There is too much religion, too much conscience, 

too much sincere desire for peace and good-will among men, and far too much genuine kindly 

feeling among the people, from Queen to peasant, for their “kin beyond the sea,” to permit an 

Government to commit so great a crime. 


- 278 - 

ALL CALM IN BRITISH GUIANA 

No Excitement over the Venezuelan Boundary Dispute 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 4.—Mail advices and newspapers from Demerara, British Guiana, dated 

Jan. 22, received at the Bureau of American Republics to-day, show that no excitement exists there 

over the Venezuelan boundary dispute, the colonists feeling assured that England will fully protect 

their interests, as English capital is involved throughout the territory. The newspapers, while still 

attacking what they call “Clevelandisrn,” as applied to the Monroe doctrine, are more guarded in 

their comment than a few weeks ago, and nothing creeps into their news columns indicative of 

trouble with Venezuela, pending the dispute’s settlement. 

One of the papers distinctly recognizes the helplessness of the colony in the matter, and declares 

that the local militia force is designed for service exclusively within the colony, protection from 

assaults without resting wholly with the Imperial Government. This paper two months ago was 

urgently demanding great increases in the militia, to occupy the disputed territory and resist 

encroachments. 

The monthly meeting of the Legislature, which occurred Jan. 21, lasted only an hour, and was 

altogether devoted to eulogies of the departing Attorney General, who had been transferred as Chief 

Justice to Hongkong. The Acting Governor, however, warned the members that the February 

session would be devoted, to very important measures, of the nature of which he gave no 

intimation, but as the new Governor was to be expected at that time, it was presumed that the 

Imperial Government’s policy would be made known. While the colonists are apparently confident 

of imperial protection, they are seriously divided in their opinions as to the forms it will take. 


411


- 279 - 

SEÑOR ANDRADE AMUSED 

The Claims of Clement Markham on Venezuela’s Boundary 

DISPROVED BY TREATIES ON RECORD 

Minister Andrade Shows the Absurdity of the Statements Inspired by 

the Salisbury Government. 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6.—Minister Andrade, the Venezuelan Minister, was amused to-day by 

the claim set forth by Commander Clement Markham, President of the Royal Geographical Society, 

in The London Times, to England’s so-called indisputable rights to all the Essequibo basin to the 

westward of the already abandoned Schomburgk line. The Minister says the article, coming from an 

officer of the British Government, is so misleading in its conclusions, which are reached from 

utterly false premises, that any one who has considered the official documents in the case would see 

the absurdity of it, but the public generally might be apt to attach some importance to the 

statements, which apparently are inspired by the Salisbury Government. 

By the treaty of Munster of 1648, between Spain and Holland, Spain’s right up to the Essequibo 

was recognized, and by the treaty of 1713 with Spain Great Britain obligated herself to defend 

Spain’s provinces as fixed by the Munster convention. With this understanding, Commander 

Markham’s reference to the treaty of 1814 takes a new light, directly opposite to his claim. That 

treaty was between Great Britain and the Netherlands, by which the latter surrendered to the former 

“the Cape of Good Hope, and the establishments of Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice.” 

Commander Markham’s claim that the establishment of Essequibo in this treaty included all 

waters draining into the Essequibo River was the British contention, until Schomburgk threw out 

part of it, and Lords Granville and Rosebery abandoned most of the remainder. 

It only rests with Venezuela to prove before arbitrators, or to the Venezuelan Commission 

appointed by President Cleveland, that “the establishments of Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice” 

were small groups of Dutch plantations at the mouths of rivers of those names, not extending back 

from the coast, and for the mast part not even occupied as late as 1839—twenty-five years after the 

treaty which gave them to England by conquest from Holland. The exact limits and ownership of all 

these plantations are matters of record, upon which Venezuela is confident that British aggressions, 

which never succeeded until by force in the last sixteen years, will be proved unwarranted. 

Señor Andrade and all the Venezuelan officials have repeatedly called attention to the significant 

tact that, while England has put forth all sorts of claims, no valid evidence of right in their support 

has ever been shown. Venezuela, on the other hand, has courted a study of the facts, and has never 

ceased her efforts to have the matter investigated by any impartial tribunal. 

Señor Andrade this morning received from English sources a copy of the official report of Gov. 

Light of British Guiana, delivered to Parliament in 1839, accompanied by a map of the Crown 

Surveyor, showing the exact extent of all British possessions on the South American mainland at 

that time. The settlements of Essequibo did not extend over twenty miles above the mouth of that 

river, and were confined exclusively to its eastern bank, in territory which Venezuela does not 

dispute, and never has disputed. Some Dutch plantations, most of them abandoned, are shown on 

the Guiana coast between the Essequibo and Pomaron, but these were confessedly of doubtful 

legality at the time. 

412


The preparation of Venezuelan evidence for the use of the commission appointed by President 

Cleveland is nearly completed and it will be presented in about ten days. 


- 280 - 

THE MONROE DOCTRINE AS IT IS 

Senator Allen Delivers a Speech on the Venezuelan Question 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7.—Mr. Allen (Pop., Neb.,) addressed the Senate to-day on the subject 

of the Monroe doctrine. He said that he would consider the doctrine as an original proposition. It 

was a doctrine as old as the Government itself, and it arose out of, and was based upon, a prime 

necessity of all human government. No nation had ever existed or could exist without adopting and 

applying, in its foreign relations, the doctrine of self-preservation generally ascribed to Monroe, and 

known as the Monroe doctrine. The Government of the United States was to determine the 

question of the application of the doctrine. 

When the commission appointed by the President reported, it would be ample time for the 

United States to act. If it should then determine that the action of Great Britain in acquiring territory 

in Venezuela would imperil this Government by imperiling the rights of Venezuela, it would become 

the duty of this Government to marshal all the resources of its people to resist the threatened or 

actual invasion. If, on the other hand, we should determine, after due investigation and deliberation, 

that our interests would not be imperiled, it would be our duty to abstain from any interference with 

the action of Great Britain. He felt confident, however, that the dispute over the boundary line 

between Venezuela and British Guiana was not for the primary purpose of obtaining territory, but 

for the purpose of gaining control of the Orinoco River, which leads into one of the richest portions 

of South America. If this were true, it would be our duty to repel the aggressive action of that 

nation. 

It was to be hoped that the people of Venezuela would not be over-elated at the attitude this 

country had taken; it was to be hoped that they would not be deceived by the language used in this 

chamber; it was to be hoped that their conduct would be conservative, and that nothing would be 

said or done by them in consequence of the friendly spirit manifested toward them by this country 

that would lead to rash or inconsiderate action. 

In conclusion, Mr. Allen said: 

If, unhappily, the time shall come, which God grant it may not, that American valor must again be displayed on 

the field of battle in defense of American institutions, and against foreign greed and aggrandizement, we may 

confidently expect the sons of America to march under the flag of the free, consecrated by the blood of a hundred 

years ago, to permanent and glorious victory. Then for every Grant there will be a Lee; for every Sherman a 

Johnston; for every Thomas a Jackson; for every Sheridan a Stuart, and Mason and Dixon’s line will be blotted from 

the map of the United States, and true Americans, North and South, welded by the blood of the Revolution, the war 

of 1812, and the war with Mexico, renewed by the estrangement of 1861, as lovers renew and intensify their 

affection by estrangement; soothed and sustained by a united and splendid American womanhood, will give to the 

world a lesson in valor that it has never known before. And when the end comes, as it surely will come, and the 

storm that has rocked us in a great civil strife for renewed American freedom shall have subsided, and the Nation 

413


shall arise once more from the ashes of its deadly conflict with the enemies of human liberty, crowned with a new 

glory and encircled with a new halo, shall we not place the songs of our recent civil strife with the sacred memories 

of other days. 

Mr. Allen’s closing words were applauded heartily. 


- 281 - 

ITS FIRST MONTH OF WORK 

The Venezuelan Commission in Session Once Again 

YESTERDAY’S MEETING OF THE BOARD 

Delay in Receiving Required Information from Venezuela and 

Great Britain Is Unavoidable 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7.—The Venezuelan Commission turned the first month of its existence 

at its regular weekly meeting to-day, all the members being in attendance except Frederic H. Coudert 

of New-York. 

Considerable progress has been made in the preliminary study of the case since the last meeting. 

Justice Brewer and Judge Alvey have temporarily abandoned their court duties and devoted their 

entire time to the accumulation and examination of evidence. Andrew D. White and Judge Alvey 

have pursued a systematic search through the vast collection of the Congressional Library, 

developing unexpected and valuable side lights on the contention, as well as data bearing directly 

upon the problem of finding the true divisional line, while Justice Brewer has been working over the 

documents and books of reference presented by the State Department. 

Secretary Malet-Prevost has kept the clerical staff of the commission busy all the week in the 

voluminous correspondence with libraries and individuals possessing desirable information, and the 

card catalogue of references has already reached healthy proportions. 

The delay in receiving the Venezuelan case has caused the commission some annoyance, but as 

an average of twenty-two days must elapse for reply to a communication to Venezuela and as the 

commission’s formal request to Great Britain and Venezuela was not dispatched until Jan. 15, the 

answer of the latter Government cannot be expected for another week. 

Minister Andrade this morning received official mail from Caracas dated as late as Jan. 30, 

inclosing a decree of Jan. 10 constituting a commission to prepare the evidence for transmission. 

Minister Rojas or Foreign Affairs assured the Minister that the immediate delay would be amply 

compensated for in the end, as the documents submitted would be arranged for facility of 

examination by means of notes and cross- references, the local commission having been directed to 

classify in a synthetical manner the spirit and character of the papers in their relation to points of the 

controversy and to each other. Minister Andrade thinks the documents may come by the next 

steamer, or that, at any rate, he will be authorized to present all the papers in his possession. 

Up to this morning nothing had been heard from Great Britain, but the members of the 

commission incline to the opinion that the report to Parliament will contain an exhaustive 

exposition of the British argument in such a shape as to be readily considered. 

414


Justin Winsor, the Librarian of Harvard College, who had been requested by the commission to 

come to Washington as an expert, appeared before that body and gave much valuable information 

on geographical subjects. He has been a deep student in cartography, and for several hours the 

Commissioners cross-examined him with excellent results. 

Marcus Baker, the principal United States Government map expert, was also present at to-day’s 

session, and will follow up the commission’s ideas as to map-making in the geological survey which, 

by permission of the Secretary of the Interior, has been selected for that purpose. The great map 

upon which the commission will eventually draw “the true divisional line between the Republic of 

Venezuela and British Guiana” is now in the course of preparation, and will be an elaborate affair. It 

will show only natural features, and will be of a composite nature, its accuracy being verified by 

reducing various authentic maps to the same scale and taking the coinciding data. 

Commissioner Coudert came down from New-York a little later, but in time to take part in most 

of the proceedings. He will return home to-night, but the other four Commissioners will work in 

Washington to-morrow an next week, holding no formal meeting, however, until next Friday. 


- 282 - 

AGAINST ENGLAND’S CLAIM 

Brazil Not in Sympathy with Great Britain’s Position 

PRESIDENT CLEVELAND APPLAUDED 

The Assertion of the American Doctrine Commended by Leaders 

of the Brazilian Congress 

ACTION IN THE SENATE OF THE REPUBLIC 

Attitude of the United States on Venezuelan Question Indorsed— 

Great Britain’s Course Denounced 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9.—Those sensitive Americans who are irritated because a President of 

the United States in the year 1896 ventured to assert a doctrine of National interest that would be a 

warning to European nations that we shall not regard with indifference attempts, open or covert, to 

extend foreign claims to territory or to establish foreign modes of government on this continent, 

and who grow enthusiastic in their contempt for the young republics of South America, find in the 

utterances of sympathizing newspaper writers in a few South American papers what they accept as 

proof that in Brazil, the Argentine Republic, Chile, and Venezuela there is no fondness for us, as 

republicans or as human beings; that Southern republics are republican only in name, and that the 

people of those countries turn to Europe rather than to the United States for ideas, trade, money, 

and for friendship. 

This sort of American opinion comes, of course, from those who choose to be exasperated 

because the President reiterated the Monroe doctrine, and possibly because the assertion of it may 

have impaired the value for a short time of some of the speculative undertakings with which halfhearted 

Americans may sometimes be connected, and which possibly lead them to be willing to 

sacrifice American feeling for profit. But the accusations are important, according to their truth or 

falsity. Venezuela may not be republican as the United States is. Chile may fall short of our 

415


understanding of what a republic should be. Brazil may be not fully settled under a republican form. 

But such as are the others, and such as is Brazil, there is, no doubt, in all of those countries that were 

under Spanish or Portuguese control a few years ago, a very strong sympathy with the republican 

feeling in the United States and a desire that the people of those countries shall by and by enjoy all 

the freedom that is now enjoyed by our people. Brazil, in forming a republic, adopted our 

Constitution with a few slight modifications. The people have friendly to the United States ever 

since before Dom Pedro was deposed. With all the South American States, Brazil has regarded with 

great concern the development of the controversy about the application of the Monroe doctrine. 

Brazil in Hearty Accord 

President Cleveland sent his message on the Venezuela situation to the Congress on Dec. 17. 

Very promptly after it was made known, the Minister of Brazil sent by cable to his Government 

about 1,500 words of the most important statements contained in the communication. Owing to 

delays in the telegraphic service, the dispatch was not published in Rio until Dec. 19. 

Immediately upon the meeting of the Senate, on the 19th, a resolution congratulating President 

Cleveland was adopted by a unanimous vote. This action was taken on the same day on which the 

United States Senate approved the message and passed the bill authorizing the commission asked for 

by President Cleveland. At the meeting of the House of Deputies, on the same day, Senhor 

Francisco Glycerico introduced a resolution congratulating the House of Representatives upon the 

Venezuelan message of the President. In submitting his resolution, Senhor Glycerico spoke as 

fol1ows: 

Mr. President: This morning’s papers contain telegrams giving a summary of the message addressed by 

President Cleveland to the United States Congress. According to that summary, the message is an explicit 

application of the Monroe doctrine, a doctrine which denies to the European powers the right to meddle in matters 

which concern the sovereignty of the nations of this continent. 

The Brazilian Senate, to which, under our legislative system, belongs the initiative in matters relating to 

international relations, has just passed a resolution congratulating President Cleveland on this act and assuring him 

of its political support and complete adherence to the Monroe doctrine. 

The Chamber, not departing from the lines of conduct observed by it on such subjects, has concurred in 

offering its political support to the vote of the Senate, offering likewise its most express and sincere approbation of 

that doctrine of international policy set forth in so timely a manner to the nations of this continent by the 

distinguished President of the United States. [Applause.] 

What the Doctrine Means to Brazil 

Our own country has at this moment controversies of exceptional importance with European powers on our 

continent. It is very clear, then, that the vote of this Chamber will only concern the nature and application of the 

Monroe doctrine, and repeat the assurance of our sympathy with it without in any way associating it with the 

patriotic sentiments entertained with respect to our own international questions. 

I do not make this declaration in order to lessen the force of the political sentiment expressed in the motion I 

am about to present, but to put in a clearer light that it is the confirmed conviction of the Brazilians that the honor 

of its flag, the dignity of its institutions, and the sovereignty of its territory are, above everything else, superior to the 

hard contingencies involved in the efficiency of our resources [General applause.] 

My opinion is an opinion inspired less by the enthusiasm of the moment—although that would be quite 

justifiable—than by a sentiment of political conservatism, which reminds me that the nations of the world enjoy 

internal peace and the respect of others for their political independence and their territorial integrity in proportion as 

the idea is fixed in the public mind that the depositaries of its confidence do not lay the bases of its material 

416


greatness by sacrificing in the slightest degree its moral grandeur, but that they lay them securely and only in the 

sentiment of national honor and civic duty. 

The resolution of the Senate, like that which I am about to submit to the consideration of the Chamber, 

expresses no sentiment of aggression, but rather indorses that doctrine of American policy which recognizes and 

proclaims the abstract principle of defense of the territorial sovereignty of this continent 

The people of the United States expect that the good sense and prudence of the other nations will concur in 

that doctrine, having an equal interest with themselves in its support, as an element of peace throughout the civilized 

world. And we mean offense to no one in offering to the leading American power the assurances of our solidarity 

with it in respect to the territorial sovereignty of the Western Continent. 

The resolution offered by Senhor Glycerico, the leader of the uncompromising Republicans, 

who constitute the great majority in that body, is as follows: 

“The Chamber of Deputies of the United States of Brazil congratulates the House of Representatives of the 

American Union on the dignified message of President Cleveland, who so nobly defends the rights, the sovereignty, 

and the liberty of the American nations involved in the Monroe doctrine.” 

The resolution was submitted and passed unanimously and without discussion. 

The Extreme Republican View 

O Paiz, the organ of the extreme Republican Party in Brazil, in its Issue of Dec. 20, after giving 

its readers a summary of the leading points of President Cleveland’s message in relation to the 

dispute between British Guiana and Venezuela, made the following remarks: 

The English, with their usual arrogance, which is born of the false presumption that everything not already the 

property of the United Kingdom is destined, sooner or later, to became so, have invaded the territory of Venezuela, 

attracted by the rich deposits of gold along the banks of the Orinoco. 

The check given to these adventurers by Gen. Crespo has embittered the relations of the two Governments, 

and Great Britain began to take steps to make its usurpation effective, appealing to the higher interests of 

civilization, when President Cleveland, through the Ambassador of the United States in London, expressed to the 

English Government the extreme displeasure that such threatened conquest was exciting in the American people, 

and proposed, as the solution most worthy of the power of England and the dignity of Venezuela, that all the points 

of this prolonged and dangerous controversy be submitted to impartial arbitration. 

The British Government was not disposed to accept the proposition of Mr. Olney, made through Mr. Bayard, 

and, fearing the loss of those valuable deposits of gold that made so large a figure in its covetous eyes, insisted on its 

policy of occupation and abuse of superior power, that had withstood the conciliatory advances of Gen. Crespo and 

had forgotten the precedents by former English diplomats in the Bering Sea and Alabama questions. 

This obstinacy of the British Government in excluding all doubts in regard to the lawfulness of its title to the 

territory which it occupies by force is aggravated in the face of the civilized world by the impertinent ultimatum with 

which it is accompanied, usually a measure of last resort, but which, in British diplomacy, has become an ordinary 

proceeding. 

This abuse of force on the part of the Cabinet of St. James has excited the surprise, not only of the American, 

but also of the European press, including a portion of the English journals, all of which find reasons to fear the evil 

results of this easy way at settling disputed questions by a threat of force. 

The British Ultimatum 

The ultimatum addressed to Gen. Crespo, demanding indemnification for the ill treatment of an English subject 

in a territory which England claims as its own, simply because it has taken possession of it and established a police 

station in it, but which Venezuela regards as its property, seeing in the English occupation nothing more than a 

417


threatened robbery and an attack on its sovereignty—that ultimatum, we say, may possibly cause Great Britain to 

lose its arrogance of conquest, that shocking audacity which, by the voice of its cannon, would drown the protests 

of nations feeble in military force but jealous of their honor. 

The individual in question was imprisoned while the Venezuelan forces were sweeping by force from their 

territory the intruding adventurers who had taken possession of the gold mines. 

The region in which the act took place had not been considered as part of the contested territory, but the 

English, as soon as they discovered the precious metal, considered it as their property, in the name of civilization 

and of the profits which, by right should belong to the English capital employed there in mining. England 

demanded satisfaction for the repulse of the adventurers and indemnification for the imprisoned. 

If Gen. Crespo should pay the amount demanded by the English Government, that act would be a recognition 

of the rights of Great Britain in the territory which he considered as belonging to Venezuela. For this reason he 

refuses to comply with the ultimatum, a refusal about which the opinion of the Government of the United States is 

not yet known. The English Government at once issued orders for the forces stationed in Guiana to invade the 

Venezuelan frontier, and has ordered the assembling of a fleet of twelve vessels to enforce the rights of the British 

Crown to the gold of Venezuela by taking possession of the Custom Houses of that country. 

The lion of England plants his paws upon American territory; and before this barefaced attempt at confiscation 

and pillage, wade under the ridiculous pretext of a service done to humanity, of this abuse of avarice and superior 

military power practiced on a free nation, the illustrious President Cleveland, who had already proposed arbitration 

as the only honorable means of settling disputes of this kind between nations who prize their honor, and have in the 

solution no other interest than the recognition of the right, resolved to protest against the extortion, and put a stop 

to the robbery, in the name of Monroe, in the name of the integrity of free and independent America. 

A Continental Defiance 

This act of the eminent statesman embodies a solemn defiance, addressed by the whole continent against the 

policy of robbery and usurping insolence which certain powers, particularly England, have employed against the 

American nations. The Monroe doctrine is a declaration that European powers shall not extend their possessions by 

a tax upon the integrity and sovereignty of the independent American nations. Up to this time that doctrine has not 

taken a practical form. The fact that there had not yet arisen a man strong enough to make an application of it gave 

the European powers the pretext for affirming that the Monroe doctrine had not yet received international sanction, 

as if the right of a nation to the integrity of its own territory was not a natural corollary of its autonomy, of its very 

political existence and constitutional sovereignty. Now, however, President Cleveland proposes to make the ideal of 

Monroe of practical and sensible effect. 

Our duty, the duty of all men on this continent oppressed by the cupidity and force of avaricious Europeans, is 

to give our most hearty support to the act of this great statesman, who has with unquestioned courage, undertaken, 

for once at least, to muzzle the hungry lion of England. We have nothing to do with the particular interests that 

constitute the motive of this action. Whatever may have been the sentiment or ideas which inspired it, it is grand in 

itself, reveals a superior intelligence, a strong will; is the declaration of a powerful race, the triumphant champions of 

America. 

The Congress of the Republic of the United States of Brazil, in passing yesterday, unanimously, the resolution 

of congratulation addressed to the American Congress, expressed the sentiments of the whole Brazilian nation, and 

embodied its protest against any attempt that may be made to encroach upon its own dominion. As America must 

be for Americans, so Brazil must be for Brazilians. Let all the Governments learn from Cleveland to protect their 

own independence, respect each other’s sovereignty, and repel all usurpers. 

The author of the foregoing is one of the Senators from Rio de Janeiro in the Brazilian Senate, 

and the leader of the uncompromising Republicans in that body. 

The Only Opposition 

The only opposition to Brazil’s making common cause with the United States in opposition to 

British aggressions in America comes from a small body of political malcontents, discredited 

418


partisans of the naval revolt, who have done penance without repentance, and hate the United States 

because, by its action, their cause was lost. This clique finds its mouthpiece in an organ which is the 

property of English interests, whose pages contain whole columns from its confrere in New-York, 

The Evening Post, and in The Rio News, edited by a half-breed Canadian-American, who, after 

being disappointed in his pretensions and tenders to the provisional Government, is the recognized 

slanderer of the new republic, paid and maintained by the English colony in Rio. 

The speech of Senhor Ramiro Barcellos, in the Brazilian Senate, on the 21st of December, 1895, 

upon the reception by that body of a communication from the Minister of Foreign Affairs 

informing the Senate that he had sent by telegraph to the Congress of the United States the 

resolutions passed by both bodies of the Brazilian Congress, congratulating the American Congress 

on the message of President Cleveland, was another expression at sympathy and approval. 

Senhor Barcellos’s Speech 

After repelling insinuations made that the passage of the resolutions had been inspired rather by 

the enthusiasm of the moment or in obedience to the plans of a political clique, the Senator entered 

upon his subject as follows: 

The Senate, the country, and all the American nations well understand that the supreme ideal of England is the 

absorption of this planet. [Interjection by another Senator: “Dieu et mon droit.”] The absorption of the entire planet 

is her aim, and the evidence of it is that, under the different administrations of her Government, whether by one 

party or the other, that policy is continually pursued, day after day, methodically, little by little, so that, of the other 

nations of the planet do not adopt serious measures to put a barrier to the realization of that ideal, it will sooner or 

later be carried into effect. 

The policy supported by all republicans of defending America from the crafty encroachment of European 

nations dates not from to-day, but from the earliest times of the Republic, and above all, of establishing a strong 

league between the different American nations to put a stop to the absorption of their territory and of maintaining 

their political integrity. This, too, has been the policy of the republican Government long since firmly settled in the 

spirit of the statesmen of our country. The spirit, then, that inspired those resolutions was not the inspiration of a 

moment, as is charged, but the expression of an idea already firmly lodged in our international political spirit. 

It is well, then, to show that not alone in Brazil is this the dominant idea; it is manifested as well in all the 

American nations: and not alone in the small and feeble ones, but in the very North American Republic, because it 

is evident that, without that unanimity of policy, the powerful European nations will, little by little, and in their own 

interests, solve the problems that now threaten to crush them. The great social question of getting rid of the excess 

of their population, and, at the same time, preserving their political dominion over their citizens who settle in distant 

lands; in a word, pocketing two profits at once. 

The consequence to us of not defending ourselves from the operation of that policy whose purposes are no 

secret, because they are constantly translated into acts, will be our return to our former colonial condition. We are 

still a feeble nation, just beginning our national existence; from a commercial point at view a colony, still dependent 

upon Europe, and if we allow ourselves to be absorbed politically, we shall go back to our primitive condition. 

This is the simple truth, and while we act as public men we must not only have the present before our eyes, but 

must provide for the future, and observe the attitude of foreign nations toward us. Nothing could be plainer than 

this, and yet the attempt has been purposely made to distort its interpretation, and falsity its spirit. A nation, our 

neighbor, a very feeble nation, without military resources, is suffering from the violent aggression of a nation 

powerful, strong among the strongest. 

The English Attitude 

This great nation that is violating the rights of the weaker rejects the arbitration proposed for the settlement of 

the contested boundary, and, strangely enough, while pursuing this course with Venezuela, proposes the same 

419


method of solution for its dispute with us—that is, to settle a question of ownership that was never before in 

dispute, of territory that has never been beyond our dominion. 

Now when the case is presented of a sister and friendly nation which, under the shadow of a threat, receives the 

protection of a North American republic, it was clearly our duty to congratulate the strong nation which, in all 

disinterestedness, and standing by the principles of its international policy, removes from the region of theory to the 

dominion of fact those principles which it is the duty of all of us to adopt. [Applause.] 

It was in pursuance of this duty that the Senate gave its unanimous support to a message of the American 

President and now does not hesitate to affirm to the press or to any one, whoever he may be. Let us, then, have no 

insinuations, hypocritically breathed to create political discord, in the presence of a great international question 

involving the pride and dignity of the Brazilian nation. 

This act of the Congress must be considered and accepted by the President of the Republic as an act or 

solidarity, because no Brazilian would do it the injustice of supposing that such a body could put itself in opposition 

to the national interests. 

He must believe that it is inspired by no other than a patriotic sentiment, especially in regard to this gravest of 

questions, both from its nature and from the results it may produce. 

This is the view that must be taken of the action of the Senate, and I declare it aloud to all, and particularly to 

the press, whose Influence In these questions is very strong, in order that this wise and patriotic action of the 

Congress of the Republic of the United States of Brazil may not lose one iota of its merit. 

Senhor Nilo Pecanha’s Address 

Senhor Nilo Pecanha, in the Brazilian House of Deputies on Dec. 23. made a speech on the 

message of President Cleveland. He said, in part, as follows: 

So precarious, so painful, and so grave is to-day the situation in regard to the international policy of the country, 

so pressing are the problems in which the honor of our country is involved, that every parliamentary effort to 

strengthen, protect, and encourage the right of Brazil is worth a crusade in the cause of civic honor. 

The message of President Cleveland has closed forever for the people of America the period of diplomatic 

hypocrisies. To North America has fallen the good fortune of consecrating the doctrine on which rests the 

sovereignty, the support of the independence and territorial integrity of the New World. To the higher conquests of 

maritime law and to the settled principles of internationalism, the Americans are now associated a determined and 

heroic movement, are rallying to the banner of a weak nation, and repelling the advances of British rapine. It is not 

enough that we concur in the sentiment of the North American President, and, as Americans, applaud the resistance 

offered by Venezuela; we must tale part in the dispute, interested as we are, neighbors as we are, as a nation whose 

interests may become compromised in the hazards and course of this important struggle. 

I offer to the Chamber a copy of The New-York Times, which contains a map of the territory claimed by the 

English in Venezuela, and a history of the pending question, as once understood by Lord Aberdeen, as now 

interpreted by Lord Granville, and showing the ever increasing pretentions, the usurping tendencies of the 

European invader. 

The Venezuelans concede the territory lying between the Pomarons and the Cuyuni Rivers, and the English 

insist more strongly than ever on the Schomburgk line extending from the Orinoco to the end of the Roraima chain. 

But will not this same line, if prolonged toward the south, enter Brazilian territory reaching as far as Pirara, and 

perhaps to Fort San Joaquin, on the Rio Branco, territory that is indisputably Brazilian? If the North Americans 

claim in the name of Monroe the right to mark the boundary line between the two countries, why should not we be 

prepared for the various possible solutions of the question, and thus avoid a second attack upon the integrity of our 

dear country? 

Will not British effrontery pretend that the Schomburgk line shall be applied to Brazil as well as to Venezuela? 

That shall never be. The Government of the republic must, in this as in all other international questions, speak to 

foreign nations as the mouthpiece of a proud, free, and civilized people. 

I regret that the President of the republic has not yet replied to the British proposition of arbitration in the 

question of Trinidad. Is his Excellency in doubt as to the matter? Does his Excellency think that it is a proper time 

to disregard the opinion of the country, which entire and unanimous, will never accept arbitration in regard to that 

which is indisputably and sacredly our own? 

420


The public spirit is under a painful impression, and the fear is hanging over it that in this affair we may be as 

unsuccessful as we have been in other questions equally grave, equally stirring. 

The course of a certain part of the press, too, is making a disagreeable impression on the public mind. Were 

that press not Brazilian, one would say that its utterances were inspired by English influences; were it not the 

traditional defender of the nation and of the glory of the republic, it might be thought to be interested in the defeat 

of our great cause. It talks about the intervention of the United States. The policy of intervention is European, it is 

hostile to liberty, and almost always ready to impose the ignominious collar of annexation and protectorates. 

Witness the congress of Verona, of Leybach, and of Trappau. Behold its criminal interference in the affairs of 

Naples, and the unjustifiable attack upon the autonomy of Spain. That was the sinister policy of the imperial regime 

in Europe. 

Ask the Brazilian journalist who fought for emancipation on which side England was found in the struggle 

which determined the fate of slavery in the United States. 

Let him remember the patriotic proclamation, full of passion and of eloquence: 

“We heard upon the high seas the whistle of a man-of-war, built by a confederacy of slave traders, backed by 

English gold, sailing from an English port, manned by English sailors, with the connivance of English officials, and 

that in spite or the royal declaration of neutrality.” 

Let our President reply to England as England replied to America: “The arbitration proposed is offensive to the 

dignity of our country.” 

If there is sympathy for Great Britain to be discovered in Brazil, or dislike for the United States, it is not 

revealed in any of these speeches, provoked by President Cleveland’s message. 


- 283 - 

LET WELL ENOUGH ALONE 

Senator Smith of New-Jersey Discusses the Monroe Doctrine 

GIVES EXCELLENT ADVICE TO CONGRESS 

Opposes the Sewell and Davis Resolutions—He Is Satisfied 

the Administration Knows What It Is About 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10.—Senator Smith of New-Jersey to-day made his promised speech on 

the Monroe doctrine. It was a strong and earnest appeal to the Senate to leave the Venezuela matter 

for the present to the Administration, which, Mr. Smith said, was fully competent to handle it. 

In opening his speech, Mr. Smith said it was not his intention to attempt a definition of what 

was known as the Monroe doctrine, nor to analyze the various arguments which had been made 

upon the question of National policy raised by the President’s message. He would say at the outset 

that he was opposed to the adoption of the resolution introduced by his colleague, and he was quite 

as strongly opposed to the adoption of the resolution introduced by the Senator from Minnesota, 

and reported in an amended form by the Committee on Foreign Relations, and would supplement 

these two assertions with the remark that he had little sympathy with the position assumed by the 

Senator from Colorado. Mr. Smith, in giving his reasons for his attitude in the matter, said: 

There is no occasion for any action of any kind upon this subject by this body at this time. 

We have done all that either prudence can justify or patriotism demand. We have met the 

situation outlined to us by the President in such a manner as to show that there is no division of 

sentiment in the Government of the United States when any question of National honor is 

421


involved. So much we have done unanimously in both houses without regard to party lines or 

personal feelings, because to have faltered or delayed would have been a violation of our plain 

duty to the American people. By entering upon a discussion of what we have already done, and 

by reopening the question which we have already answered, we could only succeed in nullifying, 

or, at least, qualifying, the action we have already taken. 

Congress received Dec. 17 from the President a message outlining the position of this 

country as it related to the existing controversy between Great Britain and Venezuela. In that 

message the President pointed out, with his usual clearness of vision and characteristic vigor of 

expression, the bearing of that difficulty upon the welfare, integrity, and best interests of this 

Nation. He insisted, rightfully, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the United States were 

concerned in a controversy which might result in the seizure of American territory by a 

European Government. He proved conclusively from official correspondence the obvious desire 

of Great Britain to enlarge, so far as may be within its power, the domain of British Guiana. He 

directed attention to the efforts which have been made to induce Great Britain to submit the 

question of a boundary line between its possessions and Venezuela to arbitration. He laid 

particular stress upon the fact that all such efforts had been in vain. 

Both houses have done all that the President and Secretary of State, charged with the 

responsibility of diplomatic negotiations with other powers, desired, and all that the people 

expected. 

It is not only unnecessary, but unwise, to either qualify or intensify our action thus taken in 

response to both an executive and a public demand. This is the first and chief reason why I am 

opposed to the resolutions introduced by my colleague, as well as those recommended by the 

Committee on Foreign Relations. 

Nor can I agree with my colleague when he says that “this action was premature and 

inopportune, in view of the business and financial condition of the country.” Such a confession 

is only stultification. If every act of a President of the United States involving National honor or 

National disgrace can only be taken with propriety when the business and financial condition is 

such as to warrant it, then great indeed must be the indignation of my colleague when he 

contemplates the conduct of George Washington, James Madison, and. above all, the many and 

most “inopportune” acts of Abraham Lincoln. 

I will not make reply in any sense to the remarks submitted by the brilliant Senator from 

Colorado. I cannot, however, refrain from saying that, in his admiration of the courage and 

persistence which have always characterized the English race, he may have overlooked or 

misjudged some of the causes which have in times past induced the exhibition of those 

admirable qualities. 

No harm can result from lauding the deeds of English sailors and English soldiers. But, Sir, 

for one, I prefer to contemplate the achievements of Washington, of Greene, of Putnam, of 

Allen, of Jackson, of Paul Jones, and even of Lafayette to those of Clive, Wellington, Nelson, 

and the others whose acts have made so deep an impression upon the mind and heart of the 

Senator from Colorado. 

This country, Sir, owes nothing to England. If ties of kindred have been broken she was the 

aggressor. From the very beginning of the attempt of the noble men who achieved American 

independence to the present day the attitude of a Great Britain toward this Nation has been one 

first of contempt then of hostility, then of submission to force of arms, and since that time of 

ever increasing jealousy, until it became the part of wisdom and prudence to assume the 

422


condescending and patronizing attitude perfectly typified in the language of Lord Salisbury in his 

letter to our Secretary of State. 

I come now, Mr. President, to the resolution submitted by the Senator from Minnesota upon 

behalf of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and I oppose the adoption of these upon the 

broad ground that there is no occasion or necessity for such definition of the Monroe doctrine 

by this body at this time. I do not object to the strong American position outlined by these 

resolutions, neither do I see much to criticise in their language when applied simply and solely to 

the Venezuelan controversy. But I do insist that it is the height of folly to attempt to provide in 

this way for all cases trenching upon the principle represented by the Monroe doctrine, which 

may arise in the future. 

The only reason I have yet heard advanced for making a specific and official definition of the 

doctrine at this time is that foreign powers should not be enabled to say, as the Premier of Great 

Britain did say in his communication to the Secretary of State, that the principle had never been 

officially promulgated. It is insisted that we must not leave to them the privilege of excuse upon 

the ground that they have never heard of it. I am not prepared, Mr. President, to admit that this 

necessity has existed for a moment since President Monroe made his famous declaration, but 

even granting that this may have been so until very recently, it does seem to me very plain that 

such necessity does not exist to-day. The ringing message of the President of the United States, 

promptly supported by the unanimous vote of both houses of Congress, and by the unanimous 

sentiment of the country, is sufficient notice to every power in the civilized world that the 

Monroe doctrine is a fixed principle of this Government, to be maintained in all cases and at all 

hazards. 

Now, consider for a moment the attitude of our own people. They upheld the President and 

Congress in emphasizing and applying this great National principle to the case in hand, but signs 

multiply that their common sense does not and will not approve of unnecessary and 

unwarranted action upon our part. We showed by our prompt co-operation our satisfaction with 

the position assumed by the President. We did all that he asked or desired, and turned the whole 

subject back, in accordance with his suggestion, into the proper diplomatic channels. The 

problem is now where it should be, in the hands of the President and Secretary of State. Every 

one of us knows and the people know that in the interest of both patriotism and prudence, it 

could not be in a better place. 

The patriotic sentiment of the United States is great and powerful, but it is not greater or 

more potent than the conservative common sense which characterizes our whole people. For 

one, I believe that they are satisfied. The most popular thing we could do to-day, and probably in 

the present condition of affairs the most beneficial thing we could do, would be to pass the 

necessary appropriation bills and go home. The mere fact that we are in session is a menace to 

the revival of business and the return of prosperity. 

As a Democrat, I might, for partisan reasons, rejoice in such a condition, while one branch 

of Congress contains an overwhelming Republican majority, and the other is controlled by a 

combination of Republicans and Populists; but as a citizen, professing to possess some portion 

of the common sense characteristic at my countrymen, I deplore it. 

Others may consider it a patriotic duty to remain here for the sole purpose of emphasizing 

devotion to the lost cause of silver, and of listening to discussions of an unjust and unwise tariff 

revision, which every Senator knows cannot be enacted into law, but I, for one, am free to say 

that I see no necessity for such action and feel no call to such duty. Of all the resolutions that 

423


have been introduced, or may be introduced, I can think of but one for which I would cheerfully 

and gladly give my vote, and that is to adjourn sine die. 

If circumstances permitted us to take this course, I am confident the whole country would 

rise up and call us blessed; but since they do not, I suppose there is nothing to do but remain 

here, subject to the dominion of a Republican-Populistic combination, and bear as best we can 

the just reprobation sure to be visited upon this body as a whole by the great majority of 

thinking American people. 

The Republicans did not relish Mr. Smith’s concluding words. 


- 284 - 

THE QUEEN’S FRIENDLY WORDS 

The expressions in the Queens speech yesterday referring to the Venezuelan question were of an 

extremely friendly character, and it is, perhaps, not unwarrantable to infer that the Queen herself 

may have had somewhat more direct personal influence in framing them than she is accustomed to 

exert. We quote from the speech: 

“The Government of the United States have expressed a wish to co-operate in terminating the 

differences which have existed for many years between my Government and the Republic of 

Venezuela upon the boundary of that country and my colony of British Guiana. I have expressed my 

sympathy with the desire to come to an equitable arrangement, and I trust that further negotiations 

will lead to a satisfactory settlement.” 

In one sense this language is sufficiently guarded, and is properly so, but its spirit is beyond 

criticism. It distinctly recognizes as the motive of the United States “the desire to come to an 

equitable arrangement,” and it describes the proposition of the United States as due “a wish to cooperate.” 

So formal, dignified, and candid a statement must be accepted as promising the removal or 

all serious obstacles to a peaceful adjustment. 

What will be the exact course or objective of the “further negotiations” to which the Queen 

refers with confidence cannot yet be stated. But, as we have frequently pointed out, there have been 

kept open from the start by the Government of the United States several ways in which fair 

negotiation might easily and with honor to all concerned attain a “satisfactory settlement.” We have 

entire confidence that when that result shall have been reached the respect of the world for the 

purposes of the United States and the principles by which they are guided will be strengthened, and 

that both peace and justice in the relations of our country and our continent with other countries 

will rest on a foundation firmer than ever. 


424


- 285 - 

HARCOURT ON MONROE DOCTRINE 

Balfour’s Reply to His Appeal for Arbitration About Guiana 

QUEEN’S SPEECH DEBATE 

LONDON. Feb. 11.—The House of Commons after listening to the Queen’s speech in the 

House of Lords resumed its sitting at 4 o’clock, the usual hour of assembling, except on 

Wednesdays when the House meets at noon. The Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, Secretary of 

State for the Colonies, entered the House shortly after it had been called to order and was 

vociferously cheered. 

The Right Hon. George J. Goschen, First Lord of the Admiralty, announced that Feb. 13 the 

Government would introduce a bill providing for the construction of works for naval purposes. The 

announcement was received with cheers from all sections of the House. 

George J. Goschen, Jr., son of the Right Hon. George J. Goschen, First Lord of the Admiralty 

and member for the East Grinstead Division of Sussex, moved the address in reply to the speech 

from the throne, and the motion was seconded by Sir Herbert E. Maxwell, member for 

Wigtownshire. 

Sir William Harcourt, Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late Ministry, and leader of the 

Opposition in the House, said he had never in all his experience met such critical circumstances as 

those with which they were now confronted. It was in the highest degree desirable, he said, that the 

misunderstanding between Great Britain and the United States over the Monroe doctrine should be 

removed in both countries at the earliest possible moment. 

The Government of the United States had expressed a desire to co-operate in a friendly solution 

of the dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela, and he was rejoiced to see in the speech from 

the throne that the prospect was welcomed. 

The only practical question remaining was whether in the Venezuelan difficulty there had been 

any invasion of the rights of the United States, as upon that point no pronouncement had been 

made by the United States Government. It was, in his judgment, a doubtful question, whether the 

United States could not justly co-operate in the settlement of the Venezuelan difference in default of 

that Government’s having in its possession all of the information bearing thereon, which was at 

England’s disposal. 

Sir William said: 

I think the speech from the throne holds out the hope that the question is ready for immediate settlement No 

criticism of such a conclusion shall fall from my lips. Every member must feel deep responsibility in speaking on the 

subject, and take care that no word shall embarrass the Government in seeking a settlement. All the members ought 

to endeavor to aid in anything tending to smooth the ruffled feelings of England and America. [Cries of “Hear,” 

“Hear.”] 

Among the leading causes of irritation was the notion that arose in America that there was a disposition on the 

part of Great Britain to question the Monroe doctrine, for which Americans have an affectionate and passionate 

attachment. That notion is now disclaimed and dispelled. The Monroe doctrine is not a doctrine of international 

law, but a principle of national policy akin to what in the last century was called the balance of power, on which 

Great Britain had interposed in Belgium, Greece, and many other places. 

The United States, following the wise teachings of Washington, have declared that they would not interfere in 

European affairs, but it is their fixed policy to oppose the invasion of the territorial and political rights of the 

425


American States. That is the Monroe doctrine. I cannot understand why England’s feelings should be ruffled by 

them. 

I rejoice to hear that the United States wish to co-operate to settle the Venezuelan dispute. There has been a 

great deal of newspaper talk that the irritating intervention of the United States ought to be resented. The 

Government does not resent or repel this intervention. On the contrary, they announce that they are willing to cooperate. 

It has been said that the United States Commission is offensive to Great Britain. That is not the view of the 

Government, for Mr. Goschen, at Bristol, declared that he did not think there was cause for complaint. That was a 

complete acceptance of the commission. [Cries of “Hear,” “Hear.”] 

I regret the delay in the publication of the case of Great Britain, and demand that a prompt and honorable 

conclusion of the affair be arrived at. 

It cannot be denied that the ownership of a portion of the disputed territory is doubtful, though people who are 

the most ignorant of the matter pronounce on the ownership with the greatest confidence. It is the business of 

diplomacy to settle the matter. It is not creditable that the question should be allowed to fester until it shall break 

into a dangerous sore, breeding bad blood between the two great nations. 

It is the first duty of the Government to adopt a measure without delay to heal the trouble. [Cheers.] The 

country without distinction of party demands the earliest solution of the question. [“Hear,” “Hear.”] There are two 

methods of settlement. One by an amicable convention setting aside archive research. If that cannot be attained, 

what objection can there be to a reference to arbitration of a third power? [Cheers.] 

The United States and Great Britain, to their honor, profess to be great advocates of arbitration throughout the 

world. There are questions beyond the reach of arbitration. This is not one of them. According to Lord Salisbury’s 

dispatch of November, it is a question of the limitation of arbitration. You ought not to be too strict and arbitrary. 

It is not for one party to a dispute to define what is in dispute. If you chose to lay down a definite line excluding the 

extreme claims of one party, do you think it reasonable that the other side should be left open so you may gain by 

arbitration while they may gain nothing? 

Believing that both Governments are sincerely anxious to co-operate, it ought to be the object of every man on 

both sides of the Atlantic to do what he can to bring about a settlement [“Hear, hear!”] Diplomatic punctilios over 

past transactions ought not to stand in the way. The question is far too grave for party considerations. We must 

obliterate past controversies and apply our minds solely and singly to the question as it now stands, make known to 

the world that sincere justice shall be done, and adapt the best means to see it done. 

Upon the conclusion of his speech Sir William was greeted with cheers. 

The Right Hon. Arthur J. Balfour, First Lord of the Treasury and Government leader in the 

House, followed Sir William Vernon Harcourt. He said: 

Sir William has attacked some opinions that were never held by the Ministerial side. We never suggested for a 

moment that the United States intended to insult Great Britain in inquiring into the Venezuela boundary matter. 

The Government does not see any reasons for offering any criticism of the Monroe doctrine. 

So far from looking at the appointment of the American commission as an insult, the United States 

Government having appealed to us in ordinary diplomatic intercourse to aid them with all the information at our 

disposal, at the earliest moment we shall give it, but when Sir William Vernon-Harcourt says that the Venezuelan 

boundary is in obscurity, and no clear view can be taken, let me remind him that since 1844 England has made 

serious and honest attempts to get it settled, for reasons not connected with English politics, ambition, or greed. 

Each attempt failed. We will not be prevented now by diplomatic punctilios or false pride from trying to finally 

settle it. [Cheers.] 

There may be interests altogether apart from the future settlement of boundaries. We owe duties to our children 

in the colonies which we must perform. Unless they are defended we would not deserve the confidence of the 

country. 

It is impossible to foresee what general conclusions the American Commission or those who are inquiring into 

the British case here may arrive at, but I am certain that everyone, American or British, who is impartially 

considering the subject will be convinced that there never has been and is not now the slightest intention on the part 

of England to violently attack the substance or sense of the Monroe doctrine. No illegitimate ambition, nor 

unworthy greed for territory or desire to step beyond the due limits or frontiers of the empire has ever animated the 

British policy throughout this long controversy. 

426


I can only add that I shall rejoice, that the country, and the public opinion of the world will rejoice, if out of this 

toil shall spring the good fruit of a general system of arbitration. If that shall be the result of these controversies, I 

shall feel that all the evil done will have been more than compensated for and that a permanent guarantee of the 

good will of the English-speaking peoples on both sides of the Atlantic will have been obtained for all time. . . 

[Cheers.] 


- 286 - 

ENGLAND WILL FURNISH EVIDENCE 

Lord Salisbury Replies Courteously to the Venezuelan Commission’s Suggestion 

LONDON, Feb. 11.—A parliamentary paper has been issued containing the correspondence 

between Great Britain and the United States since 1887 relative to the boundary of British Guiana. 

This correspondence shows that the successive Ministries have taken the position described by the 

Earl of Kimberley in 1895, namely, that Great Britain declines to arbitrate the question of the 

ownership of the settled parts of the territory claimed by Venezuela, and does not accept a material 

modification of the provisional boundary of 1886. 

On the other hand, she is willing to concede without arbitration a large part of the territory 

comprised in Venezuela’s extreme claim, and to arbitrate the question of the ownership of the 

intermediate zone. 

The correspondence concludes with recent dispatches exchanged by Secretary of State Olney 

and Lord Salisbury. The first of these dispatches, sent through Ambassador Bayard Feb. 3, informed 

Lord Salisbury that the American commission had been formed and was sitting at Washington, and 

that being in no wise an arbitration tribunal, having had its duty limited to ascertaining the facts, it 

had suggested to Mr. Olney that it would be grateful for such assistance as could be obtainable 

through the co-operation of Great Britain and Venezuela. 

Therefore, Mr. Olney applied to his Lordship, if entirely consistent with his sense of 

international propriety, to furnish such documentary proof, historical narrative in the unpublished 

archives, and other evidence within the power of the Government, and also any facilities 

conveniently possible. 

The dispatch quotes part of Justice Brewer’s letter to Secretary Olney, and concludes that the 

purpose of the investigation is certainly hostile to none, nor can it advantage any that the effort to 

procure the desired information should fail of its purpose, the sole concern of the United States 

being a peaceful solution of a controversy between friendly powers. 

Lord Salisbury replied Feb. 7, that any information at the command of the Government upon 

any subject of inquiry occupying the attention of the Government of the United States readily would 

be placed at the disposal of the President. He announced the collection of documents for 

Parliamentary proceeding, and promised Mr. Bayard advance copies as soon as they are complete. 

Mr. Bayard replied Feb. 10, thanking Lord Salisbury, and assuring him that the United. States 

Government would appreciate his courtesy. 


427


- 287 - 

VENEZUELA COMMISSION PLEASED 

Effect of England’s Agreement to Submit Evidence—Documents Here and Abroad 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 14.—At their regular weekly meeting to-day, the members of the 

Venezuelan Commission expressed themselves as highly gratified with assurances that Great Britain 

would submit its evidence for consideration. This announcement at the opening of Parliament and 

the assurance cabled by Ambassador Bayard, of which the commission was notified are expected to 

facilitate its labors in a great degree, and make the decision when reached practically unimpeachable. 

However complete the two cases may be found, it is still likely that experts sent abroad by the 

commission may be able to develop important documents which will at least throw valuable side 

lights on the controversy, and the idea that it will be necessary for the Secretary, and perhaps some 

at the members, to visit Europe has not been abandoned. 

Justin Winsor of Harvard College, called in as cartographic expert, spent several days here last 

week in consultation with officers of the United States Geological Survey, who have charge of the 

commission’s maps. The chart upon which the commission will mark its true divisional line has been 

completed, and was laid before the meeting to-day. 

It is claimed to be the most perfect map of the northern part of South America in existence. 

Justices Brewer and Alvey and Andrew D. White have been constantly at work on the case, and have 

had frequent consultations in the commission’s offices. Mr. Coudert in New-York and Prof. Gilman 

in Baltimore have also been corresponding almost daily with the Secretary. 

All the members of the commission were present at to-day’s meeting. Mr. Ainsworth R. 

Spofford, Librarian of Congress, submitted a card catalogue he had made of the publications in the 

library bearing on British Guiana and the boundary dispute, numbering between 500 and 600 

references. Mr. Spofford also presented a review of bibliography on the subject, consisting of over 

100 additional works not in the Congressional Library’s possession, but must be sought elsewhere. 

As the commission has determined to leave no possible evidence unsought, this gave them a 

new idea of the magnitude of their task. Marcus Baker, the commission’s map expert, was also 

consulted this morning in reference to the enlargement of portions of the adopted map and other 

details. 


- 288 - 

ENGLAND’S CLAIM ON VENEZUELA 

The Statement of the British Case Is Now Being Printed 

LONDON, Feb. 15.—The debate in the House of Commons on the address in reply to the 

Queen’s speech will close on Thursday. According to The Pall Mall Gazette, the debate on Mr. Jones’s 

Venezuela arbitration amendment will elicit from the Ministers a declaration that there is a cordial 

428


entente with Washington regarding the procedure to be followed in deciding the claims of Great 

Britain. 

The statement of the British case in the Venezuela dispute prepared by Sir Frederick Pollock, 

Corpus Professor at Jurisprudence at Oxford University, is now being printed. It opens with a long 

history of the Guiana settlements, Spanish, Dutch, and English, and gives numerous quotations 

from authorities. A succession of maps is followed by a precis of the British case. It concludes with 

an appendix of references to the text and a number of documents. 

Fellows of the Royal Geographical Society who are supposed to know say that the book will 

present nothing new of importance. 


- 289 - 

VENEZUELA AND COMMONS 

Debate on Call for Arbitration Hushed at Balfour’s Request 

ATTACK ON SALISBURY’S DISPATCH 

Harcourt Defends the American Manner of Pressing for a Settlement 

of the Question— English Friendship. 

LONDON, Feb. 17.—L. Atherley-Jones, (Radical) member for Northwest Durham, moved an 

amendment to the address in reply to the Queen’s speech, deploring the absence from the speech 

from the throne of an assurance that the whole boundary dispute with Venezuela will be referred to 

arbitration in accordance with the suggestion of the United States. 

Mr. Atherley-Jones declared that Great Britain had seven times changed the boundary line 

between British Guiana and Venezuela, and asked how it could be claimed that the territory in 

dispute could be outside the pale of arbitration. He reviewed the question in all its aspects since 

1814. 

Before the motion could be seconded, the Right Hon. A. S. Balfour, First Lord of the Treasury 

and Government leader in the House, interposed, and appealed to the House, on his responsibility 

as a Minister of the Crown, not to continue the debate. 

He declared that the continuation of the debate would not serve the purpose Mr. Atherley-Jones 

had in view as it would not make an honorable solution of the difficulty easier. He therefore hoped 

that the House, realizing how grave the issues were, would not further discuss on this occasion the 

policy that had been or would be pursued. 

William Allan, (Advanced Radical,) member for Gateshead, then seconded the amendment. The 

whole matter, he declared, was a tempest in a teacup. Gold, as usual, was at the bottom of the 

trouble. 

The whole country in dispute was a nest of yellow fever and was not worth fighting for. 

Henry Labouchere, the Radical leader, said that after the statement made by Mr. Balfour, it was 

impossible to continue the debate. [Cries of “Hear, hear!”] He hoped he might take it that the 

dispute would be speedily settled to the satisfaction of both countries. 

John Dillon (Anti-Parnellite), member for East Mayo, followed Mr. Labouchere. He said he 

trusted that no appeal from the Government would induce the mover of the amendment to 

429


withdraw his motion. The American people, he added, ought to have some indication of the 

intensity of the feeling existing in the House of Commons against the mere suggestion of a war with 

the United States. 

The action of the American Government had been most patient and forbearing, and it ought to 

be made known to the Americans that Lord Salisbury’s dispatch to Secretary Olney did not 

represent the feeling of the people of this country. He was glad to not the recent improved tone of 

public opinion. Even Lord Salisbury had turned his attention to insulting a somewhat smaller nation 

than the United States. 

In the view of nine-tenths of the people of Ireland the whole question ought to be submitted to 

unlimited arbitration. If the Ministry tried to plunge the country into a war for an unjust cause by 

refusing to grant arbitration, he had the right to claim that there would arise from millions of 

Englishmen and Irishmen a voice of the strongest possible condemnation. [Cries of “Hear, hear!”] 

Sir William Vernon-Harcourt, the Liberal leader in the House, said he was glad that the 

amendment had been moved in the interests of arbitration, but he did not think he could insist that 

the amendment was the best way to attain the end in view. 

Of course, such an amendment could not be accepted by the Government, and must, if pressed 

to a division, be lost by a large majority. If that happened, it would go forth to America that the 

House had pronounced against arbitration, although he was convinced that that was the end that all 

wished to be attained. [Cries of “Hear, hear!”] 

What the House had to do was to show that there was no difference of opinion on the subject. 

He was perfectly certain that both inside and outside the House the consensus of opinion was in 

favor of peaceful arbitration. Their main object ought to be to express such opinion. 

It could not be done by joining issue on the amendment. He took the opportunity to deprecate 

the language sometimes used alleging that President Cleveland had acted from election motives. 

There seemed to be a tendency in some quarters to think that the United States had acted in a 

sudden, offensive manner. 

As a matter of fact they had been pressing for a settlement of the question for the last ten years, 

always in a most friendly spirit. [Cries of “Hear,” “Hear.”] Every effort ought to be made to remove 

all causes of irritation. 

He trusted that no further delay would occur, and that everything would be done to bring 

about a speedy settlement. Sir William further said that the points of difference between Great 

Britain and the United States were insignificant and could easily be settled by the Cabinets of both 

countries, but if the populace on both sides were allowed to raise excitement through ignorance of 

the real matters at issue there would be great danger of strife. 

He appealed to Mr. Atherley-Jones to withdraw his amendment, which was done, the Speaker 

checking an attempt on the part of the Irish members to continue the discussion. 


- 290 - 

GUIANA BOUNDARY BROIL 

A Joint British and American Commission in Preparation 

SATISFACTORY SETTLEMENT SECURE 

430


A Board of Conciliation, Rather Than of Arbitration, Expected from 

the Negotiations Now in Progress 

LONDON, Feb. 18.—The Central News says that the appointment of a joint British and 

American Commission to settle the Venezuelan boundary dispute was suggested diplomatically a 

week ago. The matter has not yet assumed definite shape. 

The Right Hon. John Morley, formerly Chief Secretary for Ireland, who is contesting in the 

Liberal interest the seat in the House of Commons for the Montrose Burghs, delivered a speech at 

Forfar to-day. In the course of his remarks he said he rejoiced that there was every indication of a 

solution of the Guiana boundary ii dispute by the appointment of a joint commission. 

The Daily News will to-morrow say that the negotiations now in progress between the United 

States and Great Britain will result, according to the expectation of the best informed circles, in a 

satisfactory settlement of the Venezuelan dispute 

The paper gives the lines on which the negotiations are proceeding. They are virtually identical 

with the suggestions made by Mr. G. W. Smalley, the American correspondent of The Tines, for the 

appointment of a joint commission. 

The News adds that the commission will serve rather as a board of conciliation than as an 

arbitration board. It is understood that before agreeing to the scheme which, as a last resort, would 

involve arbitration, Lord Salisbury would require an agreement regarding the settled districts. 

The News remarks that the United States seems to assume a quasi suzerainty over Venezuela, 

which is a distinct advantage to Great Britain. It concludes that a settlement on the foregoing lines 

would be honorable to both countries, and would be heartily applauded by all parties here. 

The newspapers to-day are variously commenting on the amendment to the address in reply to 

the Queen’s speech moved in the House of Commons by L. Atherley Jones, deploring the absence 

from the speech from the throne of any expression favorable to arbitration of the Venezuelan 

dispute, and also upon the proposal cabled to The Times by its American correspondent G. W. 

Smalley, for a joint commission, consisting of two British and two American commissioners, to 

inquire into and report the facts to their respective Governments. Mr. Smalley’s suggestion is 

supposed to have originated in the Washington Cabinet. 

The St. James’s Gazette praises Mr. Balfour’s tact in ending the debate on Mr. Jones’s amendment 

yesterday, and repudiates Sir William Vernon Harcourt’s utterances in favor of arbitration, declaring 

that the Opposition leader asserts that England is favorable to arbitration, but neglects to say what is 

to be arbitrated. Mr. Smalley’s proposition, The Gazette says, is equally as ambiguous as Sir William 

Harcourt’s assertion. 

The Westminster Gazette is in thorough sympathy with the purpose of Mr. Jones’s amendment, but 

believes that it should not have been pushed, because its certain rejection would have induced belief 

in America that Parliament was opposed to arbitration. Such an impression, In view of the delicate 

negotiations pending, The Gazette says, would have been deplorable. 

The Pall Mall Gazette expresses its approval of the plan for the settlement of the Venezuelan 

dispute cabled to The Times by its American correspondent. The Globe opposes the proposition. 


431


- 291 - 

“ACTUAL SETTLERS” IN VENEZUELA 

The objection of the British Government to an unlimited arbitration of the question of 

boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela has been narrowed down to an exceedingly fine 

point. It has been so amply shown that no validity attaches to “the Schomburgk line” by the man 

who drew it or by the Government in behalf of which he drew it that it can no longer be said to cut 

any figure in the dispute. The contention which has taken its place is undoubtedly the real 

contention. It is a comfort to come upon it stripped of all disguises. It is that, in the uncertainty 

about the boundary, a considerable number of British subjects have settled in the disputed territory, 

and that the British Government is bound to protect them. 

This contention is not put forward quite nakedly by the British Government. Indeed, it is not 

really presentable. But it is unofficially put forward by the volunteer representatives of that 

Government on both sides of the ocean. Merely to state it is to show how untenable it is. Indeed, 

the mere statement of it indicates that the actual settlers in question have settled upon Venezuelan 

territory, which they either knew or suspected to be such, in the expectation that the British 

Government would back them up without any regard to the merits of the case. The position that the 

British Government cannot abandon its subjects tends to justify this expectation. It is, moreover, 

reinforced by argumentation tending to show the injustice of exposing the subjects of a highly 

civilized Government to the jurisdiction of a half-civilized Government. 

Merely to state this contention, we repeat, shows how untenable it is. It shows also how the 

contention is not even producible before a board of arbitration or any other tribunal of justice. No 

international tribunal could be expected to find that, Venezuela being half civilized and Great Britain 

highly civilized, territory occupied by people who preferred being British subjects to being 

Venezuelan citizens should be awarded to Great Britain, however clearly it was proved that 

Venezuela was entitled to it. The proper answer to these people is not the British answer that halfcivilized 

nations have no rights that highly civilized nations are bound to respect. It is that people 

who settle upon disputed territory do so at the risk that it may be found to belong to the power of 

which they are not the subjects, and that an argument that the nation to which the land belongs is 

“half civilized,” while the nation to which it does not belong is highly civilized, is irrelevant and 

impertinent. 

The claim which Great Britain unofficially sets up to the territory in dispute would be equally 

good to the City of Caracas if a sufficient number of British settlers could be found there. Evidently 

it is not a claim that could be put in before a commission of impartial arbitrators. It is the claim of 

“Outlanders,” and the same in South America and in South Africa. In South Africa Jameson 

undertook to make it good by force of arms, which indeed is the only appropriate method. But he 

failed because the “half-civilized” Kruger and his forces were ready for the “highly civilized” British 

raiders, and captured all those whom they did not kill. Evidently Lord Salisbury could not venture to 

submit to an international tribunal the argument which his apologists venture to publish. 


432


- 292 - 

ENGLAND’S CASE MADE UP 

Sir Frederick Pollock’s Report on the Venezuelan Controversy 

THE RECORDS OF HOLLAND AND SPAIN 

Great Britain’s Contentions Said to be Fully Maintained by 

Newly Discovered Evidence 

LONDON, March 4.—The St. James’s Gazette publishes two columns of matter which it claims is 

a summary of the report made by Sir Frederick Pollock for submission to Parliament on the 

Venezuelan matter. The Gazette says that, besides having at his disposal documents in possession of 

the British Colonial and Foreign Offices, Sir Frederick Pollock has drawn freely upon information 

made accessible to the British Government by the keepers of the archives of Spain and Holland. 

The material supplied by Holland covers the period from the latter part of the sixteenth century 

to the second decade of the nineteenth century, and the Spanish documents cover the period since 

the first ascent of the Amazon by Orellana, in 1542, and from the first ascent of the Orinoco by 

Juan Martinez, until Venezuela, in 1830, assumed independent existence. 

The evidence includes the particulars and circumstances in which the British took possession of 

the whole of the Dutch West India colonies in 1781, 1796, and 1803, and the treaties under which 

these transferences were ratified, the first one being concluded in 1814, to which Spain was a party. 

The evidence also includes the story of the correspondence and negotiations with the various 

interested Governments by Venezuela from 1840 down to the present time. 

The information supplied by the Colonial Office comprises that collected by the successive 

Governors of the territory since the administration of Col. Nicholson, in 1803, as regards the extent 

and character of the Dutch occupation and exploration of the interior, and also the details of the 

Venezuelan incursions into British territory between the Orinoco and the Cuyuni, the attempts of 

American concessionaires to establish themselves in British Guiana, the steps taken to maintain 

British ownership, and the work done by Great Britain to ascertain the natural and geographic 

boundary without prejudice to strict territorial rights beyond such boundary. These documents, 

accompanied by important maps bearing thereon, show a British case of overwhelming strength 

against Venezuelan pretensions at ownership to the west bank of the Essequibo. 

The report shows that the Dutch, from the earliest times, had possession of the Coast of Guiana 

as far north as the mouth of the Orinoco, such possession implying the right of ownership of the 

Hinterland, a right exercised by the Dutch, who, in the sixteenth century, had coffee, cotton and 

sugar plantations far up the rivers, and prospected for gold and silver in the basin of the Cuyuni. 

The early Dutch maps give the northwest boundary, starting from Barima Point, and taking a 

northwesterly course inland, roughly parallel with the Orinoco, to the confluence of the Caroni and 

the Orinoco. One of these maps, prepared for Louis XV of France by the King’s Geographer, Do 

Lisle, and printed in Amsterdam in 1774 shows the line of partition according to the bull issued by 

Pope Alexander I allotting the whole of South America west of the Amazons to Spain, and the 

whole of the territory on east of the Amazons to Portugal. To the west of this is a large section 

extending from the Amazon to the mouth of the Orinoco marked “Guyana.” This is divided in two, 

the Dutch part extending from Barima to the River Mariwini, and the French part from the 

Marawini to Cape Nord, on the delta of the Amazon. The Spanish settlement of St. Thome, on the 

433


Orinoco, appears on this map, but the Dutch line from Barima is identical with the line representing 

the extreme British claim. The Essequibo is expressly taken out of the limits of the Spanish 

settlements, not only by the line mentioned, but by the words “Essequibe aux Holland.” 

Sir Frederick Pollock proves that that Spaniards at no time established themselves in Guiana 

proper until they overran part of the British territory to the Cuyuni in and since 1858. They got no 

further than the Orinoco. 

The fact that St. Thome is marked on the French map as the extreme limit of their stations is 

borne out by a Dutch map, which in 1789 was prepared for the Committee of Colonies of the 

Batavian Republic by Major von Blouchenroeder. This map shows that the Dutch frontier begins at 

Barima, from which a straight line is drawn inland with the words above it “Ancien poste Hollandais 

sur les lirnites de possessiones Espagnoles.” This map was prepared to assist the statesmen who 

were negotiating the cession of the Dutch colonies in South America to Great Britain. Sir Frederick 

Pollock gives details showing that it was upon the basis of this and similar maps that the cession was 

defeated. 

Correspondence taken from the archives shows that when the Spanish showed themselves In 

the Cuyuni Valley the Dutch Government vigorously protested to Spain against the encroachments 

of her subjects upon Dutch territory. The archives show that Spain did not answer the protest of the 

Dutch Government. Certainly Spain did not assert her ownership of the region in question. The 

States General of Holland in 1759 and in 1769 set forth the Dutch territorial rights and demanded 

reparation for Spanish violation thereof. The correspondence shows that the Dutch asserted 

ownership of the entire watershed of the Essequibo and laid great stress upon their rights to the 

Cuyuni, upon the upper reaches of which stream they had established gold diggings and had been on 

terms of intercourse with the Indian tribes there for 150 years in making researches. 

The evidence which Spain placed at the disposal of the Foreign Office shows that Spain did not 

rebut the claim made by the Dutch to the territory throughout the basin of the Cuyuni. The Spanish 

Government, however, condemned proposals made by the Governor of Guyana, who sought to 

push the Dutch out of the Cuyuni basin on the ground that they were too audacious in having 

attempted to show that the Province of Dutch Guiana was more extensive than was actually the 

case. This decision was ratified by the Spanish Council of State, though no reparation was made to 

the Dutch for the interference of the Spanish in their territory. 

The Dutch archives are so well kept that Sir Frederick Pollock has been able to make an 

irrefragable case for British ownership of the Cuyuni basin as having been inherited from the Dutch, 

though no absolute evidence is adducible to show how far the Dutch held the country between the 

natural geographical delimitation known as the Schomburgk line and the bank of the Orinoco. 

The report, after exhausting the evidence prior to English acquisition of the country, deals with 

the more recent diplomatic aspects of the cases which are not summarized. 

[5 March 1896] 

- 293 - 

LITTLE NEW DISCOVERED 

England Has Found Nothing Not Known to the Commission 

434


WASHINGTON, March 4.—The cablegram giving a summary of the British brief in the 

boundary dispute, prepared by Prof. Sir Frederick Pollock, was read with deep interest by members 

of the Venezuelan Commission in town to-day. 

Entirely without prejudice to the merits of the case, which of course cannot be weighed until all 

the evidence accompanying Prof. Pollock’s argument is disclosed, the Commissioners are evidently 

gratified that the British Government, with all the resources it has enjoyed for securing evidence, has 

apparently not obtained much if any more testimony than the commission has been able to collect 

here during its short but energetic existence. In addition to the maps mentioned by Prof. Pollock, all 

of which have been accessible to the cartographic expert of the commission, Justin Wilson of 

Harvard, the latter official has made an exhaustive study of between 250 and 300 charts bearing 

directly upon the geographic phases of the controversy. The commission has also been able to refer 

to nearly 300 volumes relating to the dispute found in the Congressional Library, and through its 

agents has examined essential portions of more than 150 rare volumes in public and private 

collections in America, among others at the Lenox Library, New-York, and at the Harvard Library. 

The Government of Venezuela had already furnished to the State Department before the United 

States intervened in the affair last July, most of the correspondence which had been carried on with 

Great Britain, and complete copies of all the documents are promised by Venezuela before the end 

of this week. 

Secretary Malet-Prevost, after reading the dispatch to-day, said: “The brief abstract of Sir 

Frederick Pollock’s report is interesting as showing the care with which the case for Great Britain 

has been prepared, and the orderly and able manner in which it will be presented. The cable 

summary is, however, too general in its character to enable me to say positively what new matter it 

may present for the consideration of the commission. I can, of course, say nothing with regard to 

the statements of fact which he makes. It is evident, however, that the sources from which he draws 

the information upon which those conclusions and statements are based are in a great measure the 

same as those which the commission has been investigating in the preliminary work in which it has 

been engaged. 

“The cabled report makes no references to new matter, excepting possibly to such portions of 

the diplomatic correspondence between Great Britain and Venezuela as may not have been 

communicate to our Government, and excepting also any private reports which the various 

Governors or British Guiana may have from time to time made to the Colonial office. As, however, 

those reports have, to a certain extent, formed the basis for various historical work, it may be that 

the information which they convey has in a great measure been already considered. 

“At all events nothing definitely can be said until the report itself is received. That it will be of 

valuable assistance in the consideration of the case there can be no doubt, and the commission 

awaits its receipt with great interest.” 

At the Venezuelan Legation the statement of the British case was declared to be pitiably weak 

and easily disposed of. Minister Andrade said it did not contain any argument which had not already 

been fully met and disproved in documents furnished to Secretaries Bayard and Gresham by the 

Venezuelan Government. All the arguments now presented by Sir Frederick Pollock which had not 

been included in Lord Salisbury’s letters of Nov. 26 last, leading to President Cleveland’s special 

message, had already been abandoned by British statesmen. 

It was preposterous now for Great Britain to attempt to go behind the treaty of Munster to 

show that the Dutch had settlements in Guiana, for up to that time Holland was a Spanish 

dependency, just as Guiana was. With the recognition of the independence of the Dutch by the 

435


treaty of Munster in 1648 the Essequibo became the Eastern boundary of Spanish possessions, and 

by the treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, England obligated herself to enforce that boundary. 

The Dutch colonies did not pass to England until 1796, and from that time until 1836—forty 

years—every English map, cyclopedia, history, or other work hearing on Guiana, gave either the 

Essequibo or the Pomaron as the western English limit. Barima at the mouth of the Orinoco may 

have been occupied by the Dutch when Spain was the sovereign of Holland, as shown by early 

maps, but Minister Andrade notes that Sir Frederick Pollock has found no map giving the Dutch 

that point after the treaty of Munster. 

No fear is expressed by the members of the Legation as to the result of the Venezuelan 

Commission’s labours. They are confident that the decision will be entirely in conformity with the 

Venezuelan contention. 

[5 March 1896] 

- 294 - 

VENEZUELAN BLUE BOOK 

Documents Sustaining the British Contention About Guiana 

SPANISH AND DUTCH SETTLEMENT 

Possession Acknowledged by the Treaty of Munster Which Great Britain Has Inherited 

LONDON, March 6.—The expected Venezuelan Blue Book, which is entitled “Documents and 

Correspondence Relating to the Question of the Boundary of Guiana and Venezuela,” will be issued 

by the Government to-night. The volume consists of 443 folio pages, with a separate book 

containing nine maps. The book opens with forty pages, comprising a preliminary statement dealing 

with the history of the territories from 1520 until the issuance of her Majesty’s memorandum to 

Venezuela in March, 1890. The book is divided into historic periods, from the earliest time to 1648, 

from 1648 to 1796, and from 1796 to 1840. After that period references are made to various claims 

and dispatches and the report concludes with a brief summary. The preliminary matter is 

summarized as follows: 

The purpose of the present statement [the book says,] is to explain a general outline of the position of Great 

Britain in the long-pending dispute with Venezuela, as regards the boundary between British Guiana and that 

country. 

The territories now known as British Guiana and Venezuela had been discovered before 1520. Between the 

date of their discovery and 1648 the Spaniards and the Dutch occupied portions of this territory, the extent of such 

occupation by each country to be a matter of consideration. 

In 1580 the United Provinces of the Netherlands threw off their allegiance to the Spanish crown and war 

ensued, which lasted almost uninterruptedly for seventy years. In January 1648, peace was concluded by the treaty of 

Munster, by which Spain acknowledged the independence of the Netherlands and the two countries respectively 

confirmed their then possessions on the South American continent. From 1648 to 1796, with the exception of the 

interval between 1781 and 1783, the Dutch remained in possession of the territory they had occupied prior to the 

treaty of Munster, and extended their settlements within it. 

In 1796, the territory now known as British Guiana was acquired by Great Britain. That acquisition was 

recognized and confirmed by a treaty concluded in 1814. In 1810, Venezuela revolted, but her independent 

existence apart from the United States of Colombia, by which she was for a time merged, did not commence until 

436


1830, and was not formally recognized by Spain until 1845. It is therefore held that the following conclusions have 

been clearly established: 

First—That prior to 1590, the Dutch had established themselves on the coast of Guiana. 

Second—That prior to 1596, the Spaniards had established no settlements in Guiana. 

Third—That by 1648, the Dutch settlements in Guiana extended along the coast the whole way from the River 

Maroni to the Barima, and inland to various points in the interior upon the Rivers Essequibo, Cuyuni, Pomeroon, 

Waini, and Barima, their tributaries. 

Fourth—That up to 1725 the only settlement of Spaniards in Guiana was San Thome de Guayana, on the south 

bank of the Orinoco, originally founded in 1596, at a site shown on the sketch map. 

Fifth—That between 1723 and 1790 the only additional settlements founded by Spaniards in Guiana were those 

established by the Capuchin Missions south of the Orinoco, in the direction of the River Yuruari, and two villages 

on the Upper Orinoco, several hundred miles above San Thome de Guayana. 

Sixth—That Dutch occupation to the extent above indicated was perfectly well known in Spain, and that the 

attempts of the Spanish to dispossess the Dutch had wholly failed. 

Seventh—That subsequently to 1796, Great Britain has continuously remained in possession and her subjects 

have occupied further portions of the territory to which the Dutch established their title. 

From the first settlements to 1648, [the report continues,] the Dutch appear to have been the first. Early in the 

sixteenth century they turned their attention to Guiana, and there is abundant evidence from Spanish sources that 

during the latter half of the century, prior to 1590, the Dutch established themselves on the coast of Guiana. In 

1595 the English explorer, Capt. Charles Leigh, found the Dutch established near the mouth of the Orinoco, a fact 

which is confirmed from Spanish sources. The first settlement by Spain in Guiana was in 1596, when Antonio de la 

Hoz Berrio founded San Thome de Guayana on the south bank of the Orinoco. A dispatch from Roque de Montes, 

Treasurer of Cumana, to the King of Spain, dated April, 1596, shows that the Spaniards did not then hold any part 

of Guiana. 

In the early part of the seventeenth century the various companies which were afterwards merged in the Great 

West India Company were employed in colonizing Guiana, and had established several settlements there before 

1614, and the existence of these settlements was officially reported to Spain. 

The following extracts from memoranda on Guayana which were deliberated upon by the 

Spanish Privy Council are dated 1614. They say in regard to the Dutch settlements then existing: “It 

is well clear that those coasts belong to them, far from the River Maranon to the River Orinoco, and 

there are three or four more settlements which are very flourishing and from which they derive 

much utility and very good profit, with the mouths of those two rivers, making themselves masters 

of the possessions and fruits of the natives.” 

These records show that the Dutch had at this time firmly settled themselves along the coast as 

far as the Orinoco. 

Spain’s Only Settlement in Guiana 

In 1621 a charter of the Dutch West India Company granted by the States General of Holland 

and reaffirmed in 1637 gave Orinoco as the limit of the company’s territorial jurisdiction. From 

secret reports on the dominions of Spain in America addressed to the Spanish Government under a 

date of a few years before the conclusion of the treaty of Munster, it appears that the Dutch 

settlements extended from close to the Amazones to the Orinoco. The whole of this is therefore 

clear: That prior to the date of the treaty of Munster the Dutch settlements, to the knowledge of the 

Spanish Government, extended on the coast as far as the Barima and the River Amacura. The treaty 

concluded between Spain and the Netherlands in January, 1648, confirmed the Dutch in all the 

possessions they had acquired in South America and gave them liberty to make fresh acquisitions 

wherever the Spaniards were not already established. 

437


At the date of that treaty Spain had only one settlement in Guiana—San Thome de Guayana. 

After the treaty of Munster fresh negotiations were again issued by the States General to the Dutch 

West India Company, in which Orinoco was again treated as the limit of Dutch jurisdiction. From 

1648 to 1796 the Dutch colonies on the Essequibo, Pomeroon, and Morocco were reported as 

flourishing greatly and attracting fresh immigration, bidding fair to become the most flourishing of 

the tropical plantations in America. About 1664 Fathers Llauri and Vergara were sent to explore 

Guiana, with a view to seeing whether a Jesuit mission should be founded. They reported that the 

province had been abandoned by the Spaniards. 

In 1684 the Dutch commander of Essequibo recommended that a strong little post be 

established at Barima, in place of a small watch house. By 1700 posts were established by the Dutch 

at places along the coast and in the interior. Three of the latter posts are named in the records, one 

being beyond Cuyuni. In 1714 the provisions of the Treaty of Munster expressly confirmed the 

Treaty of Utrecht. At that date Spain had no possession of any territory in Guiana beyond part of 

the right bank of the Orinoco. No Spanish settlements or missions existed in any other part of 

Guiana. The Dutch upon the coast extended along the Orinoco into the interior to the watersheds 

of the Essequibo, Cuyuni, Pomeroon, and Amacura. 

In 1730 the Dutch West India Company, by public notice, prohibited trade on the Rivers 

Massaruni and Cuyuni, except to its own agents. Between 1730 and 1790 a number of Capuchin 

missions established by the Spaniards were entirely confined to the district between the Orinoco and 

Yuruari. From reports made from time to time by the Director General of the Dutch Colony, it 

appears that about 1748 the Spaniards were attempting to encroach on the Dutch territory in the 

neighborhood of the affluents of the Cuyuni. Thereupon the Director General dispatched an 

emissary to remonstrate with the Spaniards, who were reported to have replied that the whole of 

America belonged to Spain. These attempts of the Spaniards to extend their territory were entirely 

confined to the Cuyuni, adjoining the district already occupied by the Capuchin missions. A report 

of the Spanish Commandant of Guiana states that in 1750 the Dutch were in the interior on the 

Cuyuni, and at the mouth of the River Curumo, which flaws into said river. 

Between 1750 and 1752 the Capuchin Fathers from the missions applied to the Dutch 

Government for permission to trade in Dutch Cuyuni. They were refused. In 1755 the Dutch, in 

order to prevent encroachments by the Spaniards on the territory of Yuruay, which they considered 

indisputably Dutch territory, established a post 150 miles higher up the Cuyuni. 

The position of this post is shown on a sketch map. The same year the Spanish commandant on 

the Orinoco complained to the Dutch of disorders at Barima, showing that the Dutch then had 

jurisdiction there. 

In 1758, as appears from a Spanish official report, a question having arisen regarding the rights 

of fishing, the Dutch claimed that their dominion extended from the ship’s mouth or grand mouth 

of the Orinoco, and that they were entitled to fish in that part of the river. From a report of Gov. 

Cumana, in 1761, to the King of Spain, it clearly appears that with the exception of the Fort San 

Thome de Guayana and the missions, the Spaniards had occupied territory on the right bank of the 

Orinoco, and that the local Spanish authorities had been engaged in ineffectual attempts to induce 

the Government to fortify the Orinoco at Angostura, so as to prevent the Dutch and Caribs from 

ascending the river. The report gives the names that were then known of sixteen villages or 

missions. Not one of the missions was extended. 

Coming to 1772, Spanish claims to the greater part of Guiana are raised in a report from the 

commandant of the province. An extract taken from the archives of the Indias proceeds to state that 

438


the boundaries of this province and the Guayana boundaries are one. It is bounded on the north by 

the Lower Orinoco, on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, on the south by the Amazons, and on the 

west by the Rio Negro, etc. 

It is scarcely necessary to observe that this claim included the whole Dutch settlements and 

French Guiana right down to the Amazon River, an extent of territory that Spain never attempted to 

occupy or even claim, unless the pretensions that the whole of America belonged to the Spanish 

King, by virtue of the Papal bull of 1496, can be regarded as a claim. 

In 1781 the British captured Dutch Guiana and marked the boundary upon the coast to the 

westward of Point Barima. A map of the newly acquired colony, drafted on the spot, and published 

in London in 1783, gives the name Barima to the River Amacura, and makes it the western 

boundary of the colony. The colony was restored to the Dutch in 1793 and again captured by the 

English in 1796. The English then marked the boundaries again. 

This summary of events conclusively establishes that during the whole period from 1648 to 1796 

the Dutch had uninterrupted possession of the entire coast line, from the River Corentin to Barima. 

During the same period they explored the upper portions of nearly all the rivers to a considerable 

extent, and made settlements in the adjacent districts. Prior to 1723 there was no settlement by the 

Spaniards in the territory, except at San Thome de Guayana, which was originally situated at about 

the spot indicated on the sketch map, and twice subsequently removed further up the river, and that 

between 1724 and 1796 the Capuchin Missions, established south of the Orinoco, gradually 

extended southward and eastward toward the Dutch territory, the furthest point occupied by the 

Spaniards being the village of Tumeremo, founded about 1788. Before 1796 Dutch settlements 

existed far up the Cuyuni, while a Dutch fort was established near Yuruari, at about the spot marked 

upon the sketch map. The Dutch had full control of the whole basin of the Cuyuni, and, with the 

exception of their settlement at San Thome de Guayana and the missions, the Spaniards exercised 

no authority nor dominion whatever over the territory now in dispute. 

Spanish Commissioner’s Report 

The third period, 1796 to 1840, opens with a quotation from the report of Spanish 

Commissioner Requena in July, 1802. After pointing out that the territory between the Orinoco and 

Amazon Rivers belonged to Spain by right of discovery, he proceeds to state that the coasts had 

been abandoned by the Spaniards for more than a century, and that the Dutch and French had 

founded colonies on them unopposed by Spain. He warned the Government that the Dutch were 

advancing up the Essequibo, and might advance from the Cuyuni and Caroni to the Orinoco and 

take possession of the lower part of that river. This reference to the position of the Dutch on the 

Cuyuni is another of the many instances showing conclusively that their establishment on the 

Cuyuni was perfectly well known to the Spaniards for many years prior to 1802. 

A report to the commander of the British forces in the West Indies in 1802 shows that the 

Spanish occupation was confined at most entirely to the northern bank of the Orinoco. For about 

130 miles from Barima on the right bank there was no existing Spanish settlement or occupation of 

Old Guiana. The original site of the fort of San Thome de Guayana still remained unoccupied. In 

1810 a careful report of the condition of Spanish Guiana sent by the Junta Superior to the King fully 

confirms the previous statements of the condition of Spanish enterprise in the district. The report 

states that the Governor never took a single step toward carrying out the design to settle the lower 

part of the Orinoco or to establish a Spanish village with a fort on the right bank. 

439


In 1810 Venezuela declared her independence of the crown of Spain. In 1814 treaties were made 

between Great Britain and the Netherlands. The colonies of Essequibo, Demerara, and Berbice were 

retained by Great Britain. Negotiations at the same time between Great Britain and Spain resulted in 

a treaty by which the Spanish Government engaged that in the event of the commerce of the 

Spanish-American possessions being opened to foreign nations British commerce should be 

admitted to trade with those possessions as a most favored nation. 

Had any question existed of the right of Spain to ally portion of the territory long known as a 

Dutch colony it would have been raised then. 

In 1817 Gen. Bolivar, President of Colombia, with which Venezuela was then incorporated, 

issued an order from his headquarters at Angostura saying that the Governor of Guayana must be 

considered not only the governor or the fort at Old Guayana, but also as Military Governor of the 

Orinoco to its mouth. In 1827 an official report upon the extent and situation of the crown lands of 

the colony gave the boundary of the colony recognized at that date as follows: On the north the 

seacoast from the mouth of the River Abari to Cape Barima, near the mouth of the Orinoco, and on 

the west a line running north and south from Cape Barima into the interior. 

In 1831, in the course of an investigation connected with certain trials for murder, the 

jurisdiction of Great Britain had to be investigated. The evidence given clearly established that grants 

of land had been made for considerable distances up the Essequibo. Massaruni, and Cuyuni Rivers, 

and that Dutch settlements and forts extended still further along these rivers. It was also shown that 

in the districts in question the Crown of Great Britain exercised all the rights by which nations 

usually indicate claims over territorial possessions, and further, that there had been continuous 

control over the Indians by the British. 

About 1831, a report was made by the second Fiscal of the Colony to the Lieutenant Governor, 

describing the effective control which had been exercised over the Indians by their protectors and 

the Post holders. These reports established clearly that the Indian tribes inhabiting the country in 

submission, owed allegiance to Great Britain. During this period British missionaries, from time to 

time, visited the various parts of the colonies and their reports show that the Spanish frontier was at 

the bead of the Cuyuni and Massaruni Rivers. 

From the facts detailed in this chapter, it is clearly established that Great Britain, on becoming 

possessor of the colony, succeeded to all the rights of the Dutch. After 1796, Great Britain extended 

her settlements and continuously exercised over the territory originally claimed by the Dutch all 

those rights by which nations usually indicate a claim of territorial possession. Neither Spain nor 

Venezuela after the latter’s independence had either possession of or dominion over the territory in 

question. 

A part of the fourth period after 1840 opens with an explanation that the first Schomburgk map 

in 1839 was not official, but an actual line prepared on the commission’s survey. In 1840 and 1842 it 

came to the knowledge of the Government that six years before correspondence had passed 

between the Venezuelan authorities and the British Consul at Caracas in which the latter, at the 

request of the British Vice-Consul at Angostura, proposed to Venezuela that they erect a beacon on 

Cape Barima in order to guide ships in the neighborhood of the Orinoco. This correspondence was 

in no way authorized. The British Government had no knowledge of it until it was communicated to 

them. Venezuela never returned a reply to the proposal. This was a period of discussions. 

The first overture was made by Venezuela in January, 1841, remonstrating at Schomburgk’s 

placing boundary posts at certain points. The statement here refers to Minister Fortique’s 

remonstrance and Lord Aberdeen’s reply, resulting in the removal of Schomburgk’s posts. It quotes 

440


Lord Aberdeen’s declaration of January, 1842, that the removal of the posts must not be understood 

as meaning that Great Britain abandoned any portion of her rights to the territory formerly held by 

the Dutch. In 1843, Venezuela renewed her application for a speedy conclusion of a treaty. Minister 

Fortique’s note of January, 1844, presented the first formal statement claiming that the territory of 

Venezuela extended to the Essequibo. 

The main grounds of the claim were that Spain was the first discoverer and occupant of the New 

World, that the Spaniards at an early date, occupied and explored Orinoco and all the contiguous 

country on the Barima, Moroco, and Pomaroom; that at the time of the treaty of Munster the Dutch 

had no possessions in Guiana, at least on the northern, and western side of the Essequibo; that the 

Spanish dominion extended as far as the Essequibo, and that any possession of the Dutch westward 

of the river was a usurpation unapproved by Spain. After giving a summary of Lord Aberdeen’s 

reply to the preceding, a historic statement of the Dutch claims is quoted as proof that Venezuela’s 

based pretensions upon allegations relative to the Spanish and Dutch occupations are conclusively 

proved erroneous. 

In 1870 Señor Calcano readvances the claims on the same grounds as those of Señor Fortique, 

upon the addition, that the former relied upon the bull of Pope Alexander VI as imparting fresh and 

most valuable recognition, which, at the time it was issued, he said, was of decisive significance. 

Señor Calcano further alleged that the Capuchins occupied the space between the Orinoco, Cape 

Nassau, the sea and the river Caroni. There is no trace of such occupation. The royal warrant of 

1736, defining the sphere of missionary enterprise in Guiana has been quoted as authority tor this 

statement. Reference to the original document shows that it contains no words to justify the 

assertion. 

The passage which has been cited in support of the contention of Venezuela is an interpolation. 

Señor Calcano further quoted an article from the Convention of Aranjuez, making the surrender of 

fugitive slaves effective between the Spanish establishments on the Orinoco and Essequibo, 

Demerara, Berbice, and Surinam, suggesting that Essequibo referred to the river. This suggestion is 

unfounded. A perusal of the convention shows clearly that the words used are a well known general 

description of the Dutch colony. 

Negotiations of Various Cabinets 

From this point the statement follows the better known history of the diplomatic negotiations 

between Venezuela and Lord Salisbury, Lord Granville, and Lord Rosebery to the rupture of the 

diplomatic relations in 1887. Alluding to the statement of the Venezuelan claim in the note or Señor 

Urbaneja in January, 1887, the statement proceeds: “The main additional grounds then put forward 

in support of the claim were a decree alleged to have been issued by the King of Spain in 1768, 

whereby Guiana was declared to be bordered on the south by the Amazon and on the east by the 

Atlantic. Reference to the decree shows that it has no bearing whatever upon the question of the 

boundary of the Dutch colonies.” 

The next statement, that as regards the territory of the Netherlands, to whose rights Great 

Britain succeeded, all in her power consisted of the establishments of Essequibo, Demerara, Berbice, 

and Surinam. This has never been denied by Great Britain and in no way meets the contention 

supported by the evidence already cited, that the Dutch colony of Essequibo was included in the 

whole watershed of that river and its tributaries and extended along the coast to the mouth of the 

Orinoco. As for the further statement that Spain, so far from consenting to usurpations, expelled 

441


them by force, it will be seen by a more accurate statement of events that the attacks and 

encroachments of Spain on the Dutch possessions were repelled by the Dutch and British. 

As regards the negotiations instituted by Venezuela in 1890 and 1893 for a renewal of diplomatic 

relations and a settlement of the boundary dispute, it is only necessary here to say that they failed of 

successful results in consequence of the persistence of the Venezuelan negotiators in asserting claim 

to all the territory as far as the Essequibo or its immediate neighborhood. 

The above examination shows that the main grounds upon which the claim of Venezuela is 

supposed to be based, so far as it has been presented to Great Britain at different times during the 

last fifty years, have been as follows: 

First—The original discovery and the first exploration of the South American Continent by 

Spain, which are clearly irrelevant. 

Second—The bull at Pope Alexander VI., which cannot be considered as having any real bearing 

upon the question. 

Third—The allegation that the occupation of Guiana by the Dutch was a violation of the treaty 

of Munster. 

This allegation has been shown to be unfounded. 

Fourth—Possession and occupation by the Spaniards of the territory south of the Orinoco, 

including the Rivers Barima, Moroco, and Pomeroon. 

It has been shown that the only Spanish settlements there at any time were San Thome de 

Guyama which was situated on the south bank of the Orinoco, and which had been moved from 

time to time higher up the river, as it was destroyed by the British and Dutch successively, and the 

Capuchin settlements situated between the Orinoco and the Tumerimo, as has been previously 

described. 

Fifth—That the Dutch had never had any possessions north of the Essequibo. 

This statement has been shown to be equally erroneous, as perusal of the whole diplomatic 

correspondence will show that the British Government, while insisting that the just claims of Great 

Britain would entitle her to a boundary embracing practically the whole watershed of the Essequibo, 

the Cuyuni, the Yuruari, the Pomeroon, the Waini, and the Barima, has been willing to agree to a 

boundary within those limits which would give Venezuela far more territory than that to which she 

can show any title. 

From the summary given of the foregoing chapter it will be seen that Great Britain, while 

maintaining her just rights, has consistently shown a desire to make a fair arrangement with 

Venezuela as to boundary, and that the claim of Venezuela that her territory extends to the 

Essequibo has been based upon contentions which are in no way supported by the facts and cannot 

be justified upon any reasonable ground. 

Part fifth describes the maps and bases of the case. The first is an extract from the official chart 

of the Dutch West India Company by contemporaneous chartmakers of the approximate date of 

1635. It only deals with the coast line. It shows the reputed territory of the company as extended 

westward beyond Point Barima. 

The next map, by a leading Dutch geographer of 1640, is colored to show the boundary of the 

Dutch and Spanish colonies along the Orinoco. 

The next map, dated 1733, was prepared for a committee of the trade plantations. It shows the 

Dutch boundary extending from the Orinoco to the westward of Barima. In 1748 a map was 

prepared by Geographer Danville, compiled largely from Spanish sources. This was adopted in 1796 

by Father Sobreviela, a missionary having personal knowledge of Guiana. On it the boundary of 

442


Dutch Guiana starts a little to the east of Point Barima. The Dutch used this map in protesting 

against the proposed Spanish missions within their territory. Another map published in 1884 from 

Depons’s “Voyage en Amérique Méridionale,” taken from a manuscript map in the archives at 

Caracas, shows by dotted lines that the Dutch possessions were bounded by the Essequibo. Between 

that line and the Orinoco the country is marked as being independent. The text of Depons has a 

passage saying it is agreed that Spanish Guiana, which on the maps occupies thirty leagues of coast, 

does not in fact occupy an inch. 

The statement concludes with a repetition of the propositions maintained throughout the case. It 

ends by stating that the claim of Venezuela that her territory extends to the Essequibo River has 

been based upon contentions in no way supported by facts, and cannot be justified on any 

reasonable ground. 

The foregoing statement and the authorities contained in the documents annexed establish, if the 

matter is treated as one of strict right, the fact that Great Britain, as the successor to the Dutch, is 

entitled to the territory extending to Barima, including the water sheds of all rivers south of the 

Orinoco which flow into the Atlantic. 

The appendix of correspondence contains 235 documents, largely relating to the early 

administration of British Guiana. The diplomatic part includes communications exchanged by Senor 

Michelena and Lord Rosebery in the abortive negotiations of 1893 to arrange for arbitration. 

[7 March 1896] 

- 295 - 

VENEZUELA AND BRITAIN 

American Commission in Possession of the Republic’s Statement 

DIPLOMATIC DOCUMENTS PRESENTED 

All the Letters Excluded from the Blue Book Appear in the South American Defense 

WASHINGTON, March 10.—The Venezuelan Commission formally received the first 

installment of the Venezuelan case this morning from ex-Minister Scruggs, counsel for the South 

American republic, who presented copies of the volume upon which he has been engaged for the 

past six months, and which, he informed the commission, practically contained all the substance of 

the Venezuelan contention though considerable supplementary evidence is expected from Caracas 

and will he submitted as soon as it arrives. 

The volume, which contains 440 pages and a colored map, is entitled: “Official History of the 

Discussion Between Venezuela and Great Britain on Their Guiana Boundaries,” and is devoted 

exclusively to the exhibition of official correspondence, unlike the British Blue Book, without a 

word of comment or argument, divided into twelve sections, each covering a distinct phase of the 

negotiations since 1822. 

The preface of the book is the official letter of the Palmerston Ministry of March 18, 1840, 

already published in United Press dispatches, discrediting the Schomburgk line as an intended 

boundary, followed by the treaty of London of 1814, by which the Dutch ceded to Great Britain the 

“Cape of Good Hope and the establishments of Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice.” 

443


The parts at the correspondence are: 

1. Instructions from Secretary of Foreign Affairs of ancient Colombia, of which Venezuela was 

a portion, in 1822, to her Minister in London, directing him to insist that colonists who had 

crossed the Essequibo should submit to Colombian laws or retire to their former 

possessions. 

2. Request of the British Minister, May 26, 1836, for Venezuela to establish a lighthouse at 

Point Barima. 

3. The Aberdeen negotiations, 1841-4. 

4. Disavowal of England’s intention to claim Venezuelan Guiana in 1850. 

5. Effort to settle the dispute with Earl Derby, 1876. 

6. The first Salisbury and Granville negotiations, 1880-81. 

7. Negotiations in 1883-4 at Caracas. 

8. Gen. Guzman Blanco’s efforts in London with Sir Julian Pauncefote and Earl Granville, 

1884-6, covering seventy-five pages of the book. 

9. Negotiations at Caracas, 1886-7, and reports of Venezuelan Commission in disputed 

territory. 

10 and 11. Resumption of relations and negotiations between Lord Salisbury and Dr. Palido. 

1890, regarding a mixed commission to arbitrate west of Schomburgk line. 

12. The Rosebery compromise, 1893. 

13. Negotiations with the United States from 1893 to the present time, asking intervention, 

including all the correspondence relative to the effort of the Pope to secure England’s 

consent to arbitration in 1894. 

Over 200 letters and official documents are given in full in the book, arranged in chronological 

sequence, very few of them having heretofore been quoted publicly. 

While no new facts of a popular nature that have not been referred to or abstracted in published 

statements of Venezuela’s side appear in the book, it is understood that the complete presentation in 

extenso of all the documents makes it valuable for consideration by the commission, as all the 

British letters which were either overlooked or intentionally omitted from the English Blue Book are 

included, as well as much other official correspondence in which England had no part or of which 

the English Government was not informed. 

Another advantage to the commission of the Venezuela book over the British Blue Book is that 

it is in strong contrast to the latter, which devotes most of its space to the period before the 

independence of Venezuela and to early maps which were already in the commission’s possession, 

while it extended arguments in support of the British claim merely repeat those advanced in the 

diplomatic correspondence replying to the reiterated appeals of Venezuela for arbitration. 

[11 March 1896] 

- 296 - 

VEXATIOUS URUAN INCIDENT 

Significance of its Intrusion in the Boundary Dispute Shown 

444


WASHINGTON, March 10.—The reiteration in London journals that negotiations are in 

progress between the British Ambassador and the Venezuelan Minister at Washington to dispose of 

the Uruan incident has again received an unqualified denial from both diplomats concerned. 

It is conceded, however, that at some subsequent time, at the instance of Great Britain, a 

compromise may be effected through amicable mediation, which would remove any obstacle that 

may exist to the resumption of relations between the two countries as a preliminary to the 

arbitration of the boundary dispute upon the lines suggested by the United States, such arbitration to 

be entirely independent of the high commission, although supplemental to its labors. 

The details of the Uruan incident, which is insignificant compared with the boundary dispute, 

from which it is considered inseparable, have been magnified in England into undue prominence, 

through the failure of the Government there to make any official statement regarding it. For the first 

time to-day the intrinsic unimportance of the affair is made plain through correspondence not 

hitherto made public. 

It appears that Baron Bodman, the German Chargé d’Affaires at Caracas, Nov. 8, 1894, had an 

interview with the Venezuelan Minister of Foreign Affairs which is best described in the following 

correspondence: 

Imperial Legation of Germany in Venezuela, Caracas, Nov. 12, 1894. 

Mr. Minister: 

Last Thursday, by virtue of a telegraphic communication from my Government, I had the 

honor, in my character of being charged with the protection of British interests in Venezuela, to 

present a claim, in the name of the Royal Cabinet of Great Britain, against a violation of the frontier 

of British Guiana, perpetrated by Venezuelan soldiers on the Cuyuni River. At the same time I 

expressed the desire of the English Government that the officer who commands the Venezuelan 

troops on the Cuyuni River should receive orders to prohibit his soldiers from crossing the river, as 

well as from cutting trees on its right bank. 

His Excellency had the kindness to offer me an answer after having consulted the Council of 

Ministers. Wishing a solution of the matter satisfactory to the parties interested, I would be very 

grateful to his Excellency if a reply were given to me as soon as possible. 

BODMAN 

Department of Foreign Relations, Section of Foreign Public Law, 

No. 1,389, Caracas, Nov. 14, 1894. 

Honorable Sir: 

The Government or the republic has taken into consideration the communication of your 

Honor received at this office the day before yesterday, when I was absent from Caracas, and in 

which your Honor, in reference to the telegram you made me acquainted with during the conference 

of last Thursday, and in your character of being charged with the protection of the British interests 

in Venezuela, asks with urgency an answer in regard to the so-called violation of the frontier of 

British Guiana on the Cuyuni River, which reply, according to thy inference from the expressions 

used by your Honor, should offer the assurance that the Venezuelan soldiers must no longer cross 

said river, nor cut trees on its right bank. 

445


Your Honor will already have observed that the question here treated of is that universally 

known as the disputed boundary between the Republic of Venezuela and the English colony of 

Demerara. 

Since England determined, not long ago, actually to occupy the portion of territory in dispute (in 

which the region of the Cuyuni was not, however, at first comprised, to which the telegram refers, 

and which is notoriously Venezuelan territory) the republic has protested, seriously reserving to 

herself the right to vindicate her titles by the most righteous means, which, since then, moved by a 

spirit of conciliation, she earnestly submitted to the government of Her Majesty. Repeated new 

advances of the English line of occupation gave cause to other protests, which came to be the 

reiterated invocation of the rights that in this contest evidently are in favor of the republic. 

So Feb. 20, 1887, June 15 and Oct. 29, 1888, Dec. 16, 1889, Sept. 1, 1890, Dec. 30, 1891, and 

finally, Aug. 26 and Oct. 6, 1893—that is to say, that every time any measure from the colonial 

authorities appeared extending the radius of the occupation, with manifest transgression of the 

status quo agreed upon in 1850—Venezuela has opposed with the voice of right and justice the acts 

exercised by Great Britain within a territory that the republic considers belonging to her, rights 

based on geographical and historical documents of incontestable value, on authorities of high 

repute, many of them English, on local traditions worthy of respect, and on facts of jurisdiction of 

the commissaries of agents of Her Catholic Majesty, and to be found in the public treaties previous 

to that of Aug. 13, 1814, whereby Holland ceded to Great Britain her colonies of Demerara, 

Essequibo and Berbice. 

According to the information of which the Venezuelan Government is already in possession, 

that which happened on the right bank of the Cuyuni River was caused by a menace from the agent 

of the Demerara Government, who is called inspector of that region, to a Venezuelan named Loreto 

Lira, planter, established there for a good many years, and from the cutting down of trees upon 

some lands by several of his countrymen who arrived there some days after the commemoration of 

the independence of Venezuela had been celebrated on that bank of the river (July 5,) in the house 

of the same Lira, and in that of a woman named Manuela Casanas. 

It is known that the same Colonial Agent from whom the threat to Lira had come stated to him 

afterward that he could continue his work with complete tranquillity, and it is also known that after 

the patriotic rejoicing to which they gave themselves up, on the before-mentioned July 5, in his 

house and that of Señora Casanas, a Captain with eight soldiers proceeding from the genera1 

commissariat of the Upper Cuyuni River, and the successor of Inspector Gallagher, named Douglas 

Barnes, asked permission to cross the river and to offer his friendship to the Venezuelan authorities. 

In spite of the manner in which the Colonial Agents have been proceeding in the occupation of 

the territory which Venezuela considers comprised within her limits, it has always been 

recommended, and most earnestly, to the authorities established by the republic within the same 

zone, that they avoid as far as compatible with national decorum all cause for collision with the 

agents of Demerara, since the Government wishes to solve the question of boundary by peaceful 

means, and not to make odious this old controversy. 

The assurances now asked, considering the present aspect of the question, would be equivalent, 

as will be easily understood by your Honor, to a tacit declaration in favor of the designs or England, 

and would counteract, in fact, the protests previously made by the republic, which she still maintains 

with all its vigor, and which I have just again related for a better understanding. And upon stating so 

to your Honor, I fulfill the duty of renewing, through such a worthy medium, to the British 

Government, the earnest desire of Venezuela of putting an end to the vexatious litigation by the use 

446


of the peaceful resorts counseled by modern law, and to which England herself frequently appeals, 

as being a cultured nation, that has collaborated in the work of the present civilization. 

(Signed) P. EZEQUIEL ROJAS 

[11 March 1896] 

- 297 - 

GUIANA BOUNDARY LORE 

Archives of Spain and Holland to be Examined by Commission 

VENEZUELA’S DEFENDERS AT WORK 

WASHINGTON, March 13.—The Venezuelan Commission at its regular meeting to-day, with 

all the members present, virtually reached the conclusion that the main points at issue in the dispute 

hinged on documents lying in the royal archives of Spain and Holland and perhaps some other 

countries and that while such documents would probably be quoted by each of the disputants in 

support of the contradictory claims presented, the duty would devolve on the commission not only 

to verify by actual examination all such citations, but, if practicable, to develop contemporary 

documents which might throw strong side lights upon the evidence submitted. 

While definite action was postponed until the full British and Venezuelan cases shall have been 

formally brought under consideration, there remains no doubt that some or the Commissioners, or 

at all events the Secretary of the commission, Mr. Malet-Prevost, and agents under his direction, will 

soon be sent to Madrid and The Hague. It is explained that this determination is not due to the 

alleged discovery of mis-quotations In decrees and treaties already in the commission’s possession, 

but from the conviction that the final decision of the commission ought not to be open to any 

attack as to the inconclusiveness of the pivotal evidence upon which such decision will in all 

probability be found to depend. 

In the preliminary investigations of the commission they have been confronted with numerous 

conflicting maps and translations. While geographical discrepancies are within the power of the 

commission to harmonize through the enormous mass of corroborative charts it commands, the 

comparative indecipherability and partial illegibility of royal decrees are thought to be matters which 

necessitate personal and expert examination. 

The commission expects to be in possession of the British Blue Book as well as the greater part 

of Venezuela’s case early next week, and in view of this anticipation, Mr. Coudert and President 

Gilman, who have hitherto spent little time in Washington, will remain here for the present for daily 

meetings, at which the weighing and comparison of evidence will be prosecuted continuously. 

None of the Commissioners has yet had an opportunity to examine the British case, as the only 

available copy that has reached them was one of the advance edition sent by Ambassador Bayard to 

the State Department, which may contain typographical or other errors incident to hasty 

preparation. The regular copies for the commission will arrive here, in all probability, to-morrow 

evening or Monday next. While access to a State Department copy has been allowed, there has been 

no opportunity to examine it fully. 

447


It appears from the Venezuelan official report on the Guiana boundary dispute that the 

expedition was sent out because Venezuela became alarmed lest the British should attempt to seize 

the entire Orinoco River and prevent the republic from using the stream in any way. The British 

Colonial Governor, Viscount Gormanston, had pushed his personal explorations incognito as far as 

the Venezuelan City or Angostura, or Ciudad Bolivar, 250 miles up the Orinoco, and was most 

energetic in establishing military outposts through the interior. 

The chief of the commission, R. F. Seijas, formerly Venezuelan Minister to England, found 

everything to confirm the most serious fears of his Government, and only through his energetic 

protests to the Colonial Governor and the activity of Venezuelan Ministers abroad was the policy of 

boundary extension temporarily allowed to rest by Lord Salisbury. These extracts from the report, 

which are verified by accompanying documents, show the state of affairs at the time and give an 

interesting insight into the methods pursued to populate the country: 

In 1883, as Mr. Thurn, Special Magistrate of the Pumaron District, affirms, there was no sign of human 

habitation at Barima, but there are now more than fifty flourishing English settlements, with the prospect of the 

number increasing. One hundred and twenty miles from the lower part of the river there was nothing existing at the 

time mentioned. In December, 1888, he could barely discern the probability of the discovery of gold in the district; 

but two or three months later it was found in considerable quantities. 

Barima and Amacuro, he says, are being populated rapidly. The dailies of the colony published petitions for 

grants of gold placers at both points, and at the Petoro; speculators organized expeditions; the banks of Georgetown 

loaned money and advanced it on shipments of gold; the Government provides transportation, and day by day news 

comes of the discovery of richer gold fields. With all these things, we are threatened with losing also the right bank 

of the Amacuro, and seeing the English occupying a great part of the banks of the Orinoco; for, upon discovering 

one single grain of gold on said coast, they will not hesitate a second to take that territory, encourage immigration, 

and correct maps. 

The English, who are very experienced colonizers, are making much profit by the discovery, and have found 

therein the medium of rapidly populating the usurped lands. Posts which were formerly insignificant are to-day 

important villages, with a large number of laborers, where there are police agents, fiscal employes, schools, 

missionaries, and teachers. 

The agents of Venezuela have presented to the Venezuelan Commission, among other 

documents, the official report of the Ministry of the Interior at Caracas to the Ministry of Foreign 

Relations, dated May 23, 1890, consisting of forty printed pages, covering the radical advances of the 

British Colonial officers into the disputed territory following the rich discoveries of gold from 1885 

to 1890, as investigated by a national commission appointed by Venezuela to make a scientific 

exploring expedition in Guianan territory. 

The elaborate report of this commission is now for the first time disclosed, and shows, 

according to the testimony of British magistrates and others in the territory, that as late as 1883 no 

British settlements existed even as far west as the Pumaron River. As late as 1888 the settlements 

are referred to by the English as the “recently acquired district,” and the Colonial Government is 

shown to be exerting its authority in every way to rush immigrants into the interior, its success in 

some degree being shown by these figures of gold exports: 1885, 939 ounces; 1886, 6,518 ounces; 

1887, 11,906 ounces; 1888, 14,519 ounces, and for the first six months of 1889, 14,624 ounces. 

These documents, and especially those relating to Venezuela’s formal protest against the 

usurpation, seem to place Viscount Gormanston, Governor of British Guiana, in the light of 

suppressing the facts, although it is shown that he was in constant communication with Lord 

Salisbury. Testimony is adduced to demonstrate that the British authorities were most generous to 

448


the Indians, thereby securing access to the gold districts in the interior, deserted by Venezuelans, 

who were attracted by British blandishments to the coast settlements. The publication has been 

submitted without argument, Venezuela relying altogether upon the simple statements of facts. 

The Venezuelan Minister has been notified by his Government that the first installment of 

official evidence for the consideration of the High Commission left La Guayra on the steamer 

Philadelphia, March 10, and is due to arrive in New-York next Tuesday. The documents relate 

exclusively to the period near the close of the eighteenth century, taken from the royal Spanish 

archives, and have not heretofore been accessible to Great Britain or, at least, are not quoted in the 

British Blue Book. 

They are put forward to demonstrate the inadmissibility of Dutch claim to any territory west of 

the Essequibo. A large number of authenticated official maps, covering the same period, are 

included, none of which has hitherto been produced, as no occasion for their presentation has ever 

occurred. 

Minister Andrade has also been informed that the records of the Venezuelan Legations at Rome, 

Madrid, London, and Paris contain many documents bearing on the controversy, and these will be 

placed at the commission’s disposition, in a short time, those from Paris, Rome and Madrid in a few 

weeks. 

[14 March 1896] 

- 298 - 

BRITISH VENEZUELA BLUE BOOK 

The Evidence of Great Britain in its Contest for Territory 

Arranged in a Very Clear Way 

WASHINGTON, March 18.—The British Blue Book on Venezuela has made a favorable 

impression on the members of the High Commission and others who are studying it in Washington 

because of the fair appearance it has of presenting the British evidence in such shape that it may be 

easily verified by reference to the documents quoted and given in full in the 400 solid pages of 

appendix where the Spanish archives, both translations and original texts, are spread out and 

referred to in the margins to their sources in Spain, the bundle, shelf, and alcove of libraries being 

given in many cases. 

The pivotal documents on which the main points of the British contention hinge are invariably 

given in their original language; accompanied by close translations, and while Prof. Pollock’s 

preliminary argument, which has been so widely quoted, makes very sweeping claims, the evidence 

in support of it is presented clearly on its merits. 

As an instance of the care with which even minor points are treated, Document No. 23 may be 

cited, which is the “Royal Cedula ratifying and approving the agreement made by the missionaries of 

the Orinoco in 1734, which Señor Calcano urged before Lord Derby in 1876 to support the 

Venezuelan contention. This document is not only shown in the original, with an almost literal 

translation, but in a footnote special attention is directed to certain words printed in italics in a 

Venezuelan work (Spanish) published by order of Gen. Guzman Blanco in 1874, which, on Page 

285, quoted the following alleged citation front the cedula: 

449


To the Capuchins is assigned the territory comprised between the seacoast which extends from the grand 

mouth of the Orinoco to the colony of Essequibo to Angostura of the Orinoco, from east to west. 

The Blue Book demonstrates that the correct quotation is as follows: 

There remaining to the Rev. Fathers Capuchins, for the purpose at developing their missions, the territory and 

district from the same Angostura downward to the grand mouth of the said Orinoco, where they will distribute 

whatever missions may come to them. 

It thus appears that the words “the seacoast which extends from the grand mouth of the 

Orinoco to the colony of Essequibo to,” were interpolated by the Venezuelan agent without 

warrant, to support the claim to jurisdiction along the coast from the Orinoco to the Essequibo. 

The second appendix covers 200 pages, and discloses the correspondence bearing on the subject 

between thee home Government and the colony of British Guiana and Venezuela from 1799 to 

1893. 

Appendix III is a portfolio containing facsimiles in color of all the essential maps in the case. 

The counsel of Venezuela submitted to the Venezuelan Commission this morning a printed 

brief, presenting a bit of new and apparently conclusive evidence in support of Venezuela’s claim. It 

refers to the map and description of Guiana contained in a two-volume large folio geography 

prepared by Thomas Myers, Professor in the Royal Military Academy of Woolwich in 1822. The 

Essequibo is shown as the dividing line between British and Spanish Guiana. Numerous citations are 

set forth in the brief to show that England at that time recognized the limits now claimed by 


[19 March 1896] 

- 299 - 

GUIANA AND VENEZUELA 

BLUNDERS IN BLUE BOOK TO BE CORRECTED BY MEMORANDUM 

WASHINGTON, March 21.—Lord Salisbury has cabled the British Embassy here that a 

memorandum embodying the correction of minor clerical errors in the argument of the Blue Book 

on Venezuela will be forwarded for delivery to the United States Government, adding that, while the 

modifications are of no great importance, they materially add strength to the British statement. 

This official announcement from the British Premier directly contradicts the reports published in 

London papers that the errors discovered in Prof. Pollock’s compilation were intentional1y made to 

bolster up a weak cause. 

Secretary Mallet-Prevost, for the Venezuelan Commission, this afternoon issued the following 

statement: 

During the last week reports have been industriously circulated to the effect that the 

commission has reached a decision with reference to the boundary question favorable to 

Venezuela. This having been denied, the report has been circulated in another form, and it is 

450


now asserted that, while the commission, as a body, has reached no such conclusion, the 

Commissioners individually entertain the views referred to. 

It must be evident to all that so long as anything remains to be examined and considered the 

Commissioners are not in a position to form an opinion respecting the merits of the 

controversy. As a matter of tact, neither the commission nor the individual Commissioners are 

as yet in possession of all the evidence. The papers presented by Venezuela are but a part of 

what has been promised. 

The Blue Book of the British Government, while remarkably full and detailed, does not 

include all the documents which may be adduced in support of its contentions. The commission 

has not and will not limit itself to the consideration of what those two Governments may 

present. It has been engaged upon independent lines of inquiry, and will continue to follow those 

lines until all its sources of information shall have been exhausted. 

Then, and not until then, will it be in a position to form any opinion or to make any report. 

The so-called Uruan incident has been separated from the Venezuelan boundary dispute, and 

practically terminated, it is understood, through the good offices of the United States, without 

the representatives of Great Britain and the South American republic coming into direct 

relations regarding the affair. 

This Uruan incident, so called, had at one time a somewhat threatening aspect, but finally 

developed into comparative insignificance, capable of exceedingly tame adjustment. It is 

strenuously contended by those most intimately concerned that the incident never had an 

ultimatum stage, and that there was never any foundation for the report that a British fleet would 

be called upon to imitate the Corinto demonstration. 

While originally the claim presented through the German Legation in November, 1894, was 

for a violation of the frontier of British Guiana, and therefore inseparable from the boundary 

controversy, at Secretary Olney’s instance Great Britain, a few weeks ago, modified it into a 

demand similar in effect to that pressed by Italy against the United States on account of the New 

Orleans riots in 1890, which claim was settled by the payment by President Harrison of a certain 

sum of money out of the State Department contingent fund. 

It is understood that the Uruan demand now simply becomes one for personal damages 

inflicted upon British property and persons by Venezuelan officials, leaving out of controversy 

the question whether the occurrence was upon Venezuelan territory as being irrelevant. When 

Douglas Barnes, the British Guiana constable, was arrested in July, 1894. by Venezuelan soldiers 

on the right bank of the Cuyuni River, which he had crossed to stop a Venezuelan planter from 

cutting trees on land which he owned, the Venezuelan Government paid Barnes $300 or $400 

on account of his imprisonment, which he personally considered as satisfactory. 

But when the Colonial Government heard of it, considerable indignation arose in Demerara, 

and the damages were soon magnified to enormous amounts, which at that period the home 

Government felt constrained to present as a claim against Venezuela. After two years, however, 

and in view of the changed aspect of the boundary dispute, the claim has dwindled to $5,000, 

and this amount is probably about what Venezuela will shortly pay, with the distinct 

understanding that it does not affect the title to the territory upon which the arrest occurred. 

[22 March 1896] 

451


- 300 - 

CLOSING DOWN THEIR WORKS 

Not Willing to Risk Money in the Disputed Venezuelan Territory 

WASHINGTON, April 1.—British Guiana papers, dated as late as March 18, which reached the 

Bureau of American Republics to-day, indicate the abandonment of Great Britain’s determination to 

insist upon retaining all the settlements established by Englishmen throughout the disputed territory 

should the Venezuela claims be sustained. In regard to these settlements Lord Salisbury wrote 

Secretary Olney four months ago that under no circumstances could they ever be surrendered to 

alien jurisdiction. The Georgetown Chronicle, however, in its issue of March 18, says: 

The public generally, and those interested in mining concerns particularly, have learned with regret that work 

has been closed down on the properties of the Winter syndicate, the Bartley syndicate, and the Barima Development 

Company. It is alleged that the reason the properties have decided to adopt this course is because they do not 

consider that, in the unsettled state of the boundary question, their rights are at present sufficiently secure to justify 

them in incurring the heavy expenditure which continued prosecution of the work would require. 

In another part of the paper a statement from Mr. Connolly, Superintendent of the Barima 

Company, is published, declaring that he had received instructions from London not to incur any 

additional heavy expenses until the Government gave grants to the property, “the company’s 

solicitors thinking it would be injudicious in the present position of the Venezuelan boundary 

dispute to spend money developing property which might be taken from them without 

compensation.” Other superintendents had received similar instructions from London headquarters. 

The location of these companies is the richest gold field that has yet been, found in Guiana, and 

the capital already invested there is greater than in any other locality in the colony. 

[2 April 1896] 

- 301 - 

INDEMNITY FOR URUAN AFFAIR 

Venezuela Expects to Pay for Damages to Great Britain 

LONDON, April 1.—The Times to-morrow will publish a dispatch from Caracas, capital of 

Venezuela, saying that, according to a telegram received there from Washington, Great Britain will 

receive ₤1,000 indemnity on account of the Uruan incident. 

The local press, the dispatch says, condemns the weakness of the Government. The public 

generally are apathetic upon the subject. 

[2 April 1896] 

452


- 302 - 

THE VENEZUELAN COMMISSION 

Its Work Believed to be About One-Half Completed 

WASHINGTON, April 2.—Justice Brewer presided to-day over the first formal meeting of the 

Venezuelan Commission that has been held for the past two weeks, having returned from San 

Antonio, Texas, last night. All the members were in attendance, and, after careful individual study of 

the British Blue Book, entered into a rigid discussion of its arguments and evidence. 

To-day’s session was considered the most important so far held by the commission, which is 

now possessed of all the main features of the contention and the principal points upon which the 

dispute depends. 

The question of sending one or more representatives of the commission to Europe to verify the 

accuracy of the documents submitted by Venezuela and Great Britain was discussed, and, while no 

definite action was taken, the indispensability of the examination of Spanish, as well as Dutch, 

archives was recognized, and no doubt is expressed that a search will soon be ordered. The 

commission has now been at work three months, and its labors are thought to be about half 

completed. 

In the House to-day Mr. Hitt reported favorably from the Committee on Foreign Affairs the 

resolution asking the President to transmit to Congress all the correspondence in the Department of 

State relating to mediation or intervention by the United States in the affairs of Venezuela since Dec. 

1, 1895, to date, and the resolution was agreed to. 

[3 April 1896] 

- 303 - 

VENEZUELA BOUNDARY QUARREL 

English Complaint of Lack of Reply to the Blue Book’s Case 

LONDON, April 3.—In its issue to-morrow The Daily News will complain that Venezuela has 

made no reply to the British case presented in the Blue Book recently issued. 

“The question,” it says, “has become pressing. We are unable to learn whether the American 

commission has received anything from Venezuela beyond pamphlets narrating resistance to the 

British claims, while there is entire absence of a case on which to arbitrate.” 

The Daily News contends that Venezuela has never produced a single proof that she ever 

possessed jurisdiction over the territory to the eastward of the Orinoco River, but has confined 

herself simply to protests against alleged British encroachments. 

The paper also complains of Venezuela warping Lord Aberdeen’s statements made in 1844, for 

which reason it wonders less at Lord Salisbury’s reluctance to arbitrate with such opponents. 

[4 April 1896] 

453


- 304 - 

A DEMERARA REPORT DENIED 

Surveying Party Mistaken for an Expedition in Venezuela 

LONDON, April 4.—A news agency denies the statement contained in a recently published 

dispatch from Georgetown, Demerara, that a British expedition had left that place to establish a new 

station on the Cuyuni River west of the Schomburgk line, to open a new road to the Yuruan, as a 

protest against a big grant by the Venezuelan Government to American capitalists in the gold 

country at the mouth of the Orinoco. 

It expresses the opinion that the statement contained in the dispatch referred to originated from 

preparations by an English surveying party for an inspection of the country between the Yuruni and 

Cuyuni Rivers, to ascertain whether it is possible to build a road or railway to open up the gold 

fields. 

[5 April 1896] 

- 305 - 

A FAIR SETTLEMENT PREDICTED 

Negotiations as to the Venezuelan Matter Promise Good Results 

LONDON, April 5.—The Chronicle will say to-morrow that the negotiations between Great 

Britain and the United States concerning Venezuela are proceeding satisfactorily, and that a solution 

favorable to all is counted upon with confidence. 

The Times has received a publication, dated Atlanta, Ga., the cover of which bears the embossed 

stamp of the Venezuelan Legation at Washington. It is entitled “Official History of the Discussion 

Between Great Britain and Venezuela on Their Guiana Boundaries.” The documents contained in 

the publication date from 1822. 

Commenting upon the work, The Times says that all the documents are published in the British 

Blue Book, except two from Venezuelan representatives to the State Department at Washington. 

These The Times prints. The first is from Señor Lobo, dated Oct. 26, 1893, and the second from 

Señor Andrade, dated March 31, 1894. 

[6 April 1896] 

- 306 - 

THE VENEZUELAN DISPUTE 

POSITION TAKEN BY PRESIDENT CLEVELAND JUSTIFIED 

This Shown by Facts Well Known in the British Colony— 

Probable Neutrality of the Disputed Territory 

454


Great Britain Had No Title to the Northwest District and Spain Never Occupied It 

Some Pertinent Points in the Controversy 

Special Correspondence of The New-York Times 

GEORGETOWN, British Guiana, March 15.—Now that there is a probability of the British 

Government consenting to submit the question of boundaries between British Guiana and 

Venezuela to arbitration there is also the likelihood of the main feature in this long-standing dispute 

being clearly defined. What must be accepted as the premises to any consideration of the British 

claims in this connection is, What were the Dutch possessions in this territory in 1798? The next, 

Was the territory in dispute ever occupied or possessed by the Spaniards, or by the Venezuelans as 

their successors? 

There is no doubt that the chief difficulty in connection with this question has been to ascertain 

what the Dutch actually ceded to Great Britain, but it is equally important to note that it does not 

necessarily follow that Venezuela has acquired a right to all or any of the territory east of the 

Orinoco not occupied by the Dutch, and when this has been stated, it should, to every reasonable 

mind, be sufficient to prove how logical and just was the position taken up by President Cleveland 

when he stated that the question was one which could only be settled by arbitration. 

It has been attempted to prove a great deal by the reproduction of the earlier maps of Guiana; 

references have been made at considerable length by Mr. Daly, President of the New-York 

Geographical Society: by Clements P. Markham, President of the Royal Geographical Society, and 

others to ancient charts, but it is most important to note in connection with such chartographical 

references that maps can only prove claims, not titles, and therefore, while these ancient charts 

might be interesting, they cannot be accepted as evidence in the settlement of a question of 

boundaries. The Dutch ceded their possessions to Great Britain. 

Important also in this connection is the following extract from an official dispatch, dated from 

the Governor’s residence, Demerara, July 15, 1839, from Gov. Light to the Marquis of Normanby, 

in which the then Governor of Demerara wrote as follows: “I am enabled to reply to your 

Lordship’s dispatch No. 11, dated 12th March, and to that of your Lordship’s predecessor, No. 74, 

dated 1st December, 1838. I shall observe that there are no documents in the archives of the colony 

respect respecting the western or southern limits of British Guiana; the memoir of Mr. Schomburgk 

is therefore valuable.” 

In the absence then of any documentary evidence as to the limits of the colony a reference must 

be made to history, and the historical records of the settlement of the Dutch on the Guianan coast 

are pretty complete. We know how the Dutch first established a trading post at the Pomeroon, then 

their settlements on that river, then at Berbice, afterward on the Essequibo, and still later again on 

the Demerara River. We are told that in 1814 Berbice, Demerara, and Essequibo were finally ceded 

to Great Britain, and there should scarcely be any difficulty in defining the limits of these colonies at 

that time, or even at an earlier period. 

A reference might be made to the Dutch charts of the eighteenth century to prove the extent of 

the Dutch claims, but this is perhaps unnecessary since Lord Salisbury has stated upon what the 

British claims are based. Lord Salisbury, in his letter to Sir Julian Pauncefote of date Nov. 26, 1895, 

says: “The title of Great Britain to the territory in question is derived in the first place from conquest 

and military occupation of the Dutch settlements in 1796. Both on this occasion and at the time of a 

previous occupation, in 1781, the British authorities marked the western boundary of their 

455


possessions “as beginning some distance up the Orinoco, beyond Point Barima, in accordance with 

the limits claimed and actually held by the Dutch, and this has always since remained the frontier 

claimed by Great Britain.” 

But important in this connection is a sentence in Lord Salisbury’s letter to Mr. Olney on this 

subject, where he says: “Sir Robert Schomburgk did not discover or invent any new boundaries. He 

took particular care to fortify himself with the history of the case. He had further, from actual 

exploration and information obtained from the Indians, as at Barima and local traditions on the 

Cuyuni, fixed the limits of the Dutch possessions and the zone from which all trace of Spanish 

influence was absent. At the very outset of his mission he surveyed Point Barima, where the remains 

of a Dutch fort still existed, and placed here and at the mouth of the Amacura two boundary posts.” 

It is, perhaps, matter for sincere regret if his Lordship has been so grievously misled upon the 

actual facts as the above quotations would indicate. Surely the Marquis of Salisbury does not require 

to be told at this date that his statement with regard to Mr. Schomburgk is scarcely in strict 

accordance with truth, and that his reference to the Dutch possessions “beginning some distance up 

the Orinoco” is absolutely without foundation? 

Surely, Lord Salisbury could have learned that Robert Schomburgk drew his line from the east 

bank of the Amacura long before he visited these regions; that Mr. Schomburgk had for his 

authority for so doing the tradition mentioned by Hartsinck and Humboldt of a Dutch post having 

existed at Point Barima at one time, and the fact that “le Major von Bouchenroeder’ of the Batavian 

Republic had marked on his map of Guiana (1798) the “site of an ancient Dutch post,” while it is 

well known that the gallant Major had not only never visited the district but had never been in 

Guiana. 

True, Capt Thompson had in his map (1781) marked the Barima as the limits of the Dutch 

possessions according to their claims, but Netscher, who is the best authority on the Dutch 

possessions in Guiana, says: “If the authorities in Essequibo had thought they had a clear right to 

the territory up to the Barima, surely they would have placed their furthest frontier post upon that 

river and not upon the Moruca.” 

In point of fact, it is very evident that Schomburgk, in drawing his sketch line from the Amacura, 

took as his authority for doing so the map of Major von Bouchenroeder, and the latter has been 

charged by Netscher with having so drawn his line from “a desire on his part to give satisfaction to 

the national pride of his Government—that of the Batavian Republic.” But then, again, surely the 

noble Marquis is aware that even “le Major von Bouchenroeder” did not claim the existence of “a 

Dutch fort,” but rather “the site of an ancient Dutch post,” a mere trading depot or smuggler’s hut, 

if it even did exist, but which had certainly ceased to exist more than a century before the British had 

obtained possession from the Dutch. Surely Lord Salisbury knows ere this time that the Dutch never 

settled in or occupied any territory west of the Moruca? 

But since Lord Salisbury states his willingness to rest his case upon the British occupation of the 

Dutch settlements in 1796, he has narrowed the question down to a point that should not be 

difficult of solution. The only question then is: What were the Dutch possessions in 1796? 

In considering this point, it would perhaps be well to remember that according to the law of 

nations, a title to a country may be obtained by discovery, by possession, or by occupation; 

conquest, or treaty with the owners. The rights by discovery alone may be insufficient, as the 

country maybe held by a people sufficiently powerful to prevent occupation by the discoverers. Only 

in the case of uninhabited countries can discovery alone constitute a right. And what is certainly 

important here is that the Dutch obtained their title to what they did hold, by occupation, and, 

456


therefore, when ceding their possessions, could, and did, only cede what was theirs by such 

occupation. 

It is generally conceded that in the latter part of the eighteenth century the post at the mouth of 

the Pomeroon, which had been destroyed in 1666, was replaced by one at the Moruca River, and no 

claim has ever been made to even claim that there ever was a Dutch post further to the westward at 

any subsequent period. Netscher has made this point particularly clear, though he goes on to state: 

“We also find in the State archives [Holland) a manuscript map, apparently of about the middle of 

the eighteenth century, on which the still more westerly river Waini is marked as the boundary, but 

in no single document of this time do we find any mention made of a post or a garrison further 

west.” And then he goes on to point out that if the authorities had believed they had any right to the 

territory to the west of the Moruca they would not have marked their furthest frontier post at the 

Moruca. 

The facts connected with the establishment of an outpost at the Moruca are these: During the 

first occupation by the British referred to by Lord Salisbury, 1781, there was no post at either the 

Pomeroon or the Monica. The planters had suffered considerable loss by the running away of slaves, 

and although they had applied for the erection of a post at the Moruca to prevent this, the petition 

was not granted, as there was “no money in the chest.” 

During the French occupation, 1782-3, the planters had evidently renewed their application, for 

in 1784 a small post had been established at the mouth of the Moruca as a watchhouse for runaway 

slaves. 

Had Lord Salisbury desired further evidence as to whether the post at the Moruca was the most 

westerly point, a reference could have been made to Southey’s Chronological History of the West 

Indies, where it is stated: “On the 19th of January (1797) a party of Spaniards crossed the Orinoko 

to attack the outpost at Moroko, the most remote point of the colony of Essequebo.” (Vol III, p. 

121.) 

This together with the fact that there is not in the archives of Spain, Holland, or British Guiana 

any proof of the existence of a Dutch post further west than the Monica, it might be accepted as 

conclusively proved that “ the Moroko was the mast remote point of the colony of Essequebo.” 

But, should the Marquis still retain a doubt as to that point, a reference might be made to the 

accompanying map, which not only shows what was believed to be the British possessions in the 

colony of Essequibo in 1858, but which has the further advantage of having been drawn by the 

Crown Surveyor of the British colony and dedicated to Gov. Light. 

What is certainly a most important feature of the map is the details as to the extent of the 

parishes in the several colonies. And as it is only the other day that an attempt was made to prove 

that all of the Northwest Territory up to the Barima and Amacura Rivers was within the colony of 

Essequibo, it is not a difficult matter to prove when the extension was made. The accompanying 

map certainly proves that in 1858 the colony of Essequibo did not extend beyond the Pomeroon, 

and for that the Monica would form the natural boundary, and it is probable that Great Britain will 

never succeed in proving more. 

But, on the other hand, it will be none the less difficult for Venezuela to prove any right to the 

territory from the Moruca to the Orinoco. It is a well-known fact that the Caribs never could and 

never did tolerate the Spaniards. In every case where a settlement was attempted by the Spaniards 

east of the Orinoco, the Caribs succeeded in destroying it and driving out the settlers. With the 

exception of one attempt made in 1530 to settle on the east bank of the Lower Orinoco, (at the 

Barima,) the Spaniards never settled in what is known to-day as the Northwest Territory of British 

457


Guiana, and if the Venezuelans have no other authority to break down on this point than Depons, 

they have a difficult task indeed. Speaking of the conquest of Venezuela by the Spaniards, Depons 

says: “Of all the conquests made in the New World, in the name of the King of Spain, that of the 

country in question was the most arduous, tedious, and we may add the most incomplete.” And 

again, to quote the same writer: “It is, in fact, certain that Spanish Guiana, which in the best charts is 

made to occupy thirty leagues from the mouth of the Oroonoko to Cape Nassau, never extended so 

far in that direction; the natives, who have uniformly asserted their independence, and have never 

been either converted, reduced or subjugated, continue still as free as they were before the discovery 

of the New World.” 

Bancrott says: “The Spaniards, however, have no other possession in this country, except their 

settlements on the eastern side of the River Oronoque, near the confines of its limits, and, therefore, 

can hardly be included among the proprietors of Guiana.” It is very apparent that Gumilla was right 

when he marked the large tract of country from the Orinoco to near the Essequibo, Naciones no 

conocidas. 

Is it not probable then that the Northwest Territory is entirely independent? Suppose this to be 

the case all that is required is either to divide the independent territory midway between the furthest 

occupation of both parties, to establish a protectorate over the natives, or, if they wish to have a 

voice in the matter, give them a choice of annexation to either British Guiana or Venezuela. 

With regard to the British claims to the basin of the Cuyuni, these are said to rest upon the wellestablished 

principles of international law, and, therefore, can be left there, with the remark that, as 

Venezuela can prove occupation very considerably within the lines of the British claims, little 

difficulty need be anticipated in that direction. 

[6 April 1896] 

- 307 - 

THE VENEZUELAN CONTROVERSY 

Ex-Minister Phelps’s Narrow View Not That of the American People 

From Harper’s Weekly 

The speech on the Venezuela controversy which was recently made by ex-Minister Phelps had 

the very great advantage of clearness and power. It was a weighty utterance, and there is a certain 

attractive simplicity about the argument that this country ought not to interfere in the affairs of 

foreign countries except to protect its material interests—itself. There seems, however, to be 

something more in the Monroe doctrine than the old rule that every nation has the right to defend 

itself against the acts of other nations that immediately and directly threaten its material well-being. 

A nation has the right to protect itself against remote consequences, and to guard against such evil 

results of international neighborhood as may be reasonably conjectured. 

Far example, it is clearly within the right of the United States to insist that no European power 

shall extend its territorial possessions on this hemisphere, on the ground that the greater the 

European interests in America the more likely is America to be involved in European 

complications—such complications, for instance, as result from the propinquity and actual contact 

458


of European nations in Africa. If Europeans are ever to fight in South America as they now threaten 

to fight in Africa, or even if the quarrelling between them shall he no more than the uncomfortable 

bickering that threatens to result in war, but that really never does, the United States will find it 

difficult, if not impossible, to remain outside of the arena of disturbance. We should almost certainly 

find ourselves involved in the European controversies against which Washington warned his fellowcountrymen. 

To come to particulars, this country has the right to object to the increase of British power in 

America, and to endeavor to prevent it. No one knows better than Mt. Phelps that England is not a 

good neighbor to the United States. In fact, Mr. Phelps’s writings on the seal question have 

conveyed to a good many minds the impression that he was almost ready to go to extremes in that 

controversy. It is perfectly sure that war with Venezuela on the boundary question would be absurd, 

but it also true that the United States has the right to say that its interests are threatened by every 

attempt on the part of a European Government to bring Europe and European complications 

nearer to us by imposing European institutions upon an unwilling American people. Moreover, this 

is not only the attitude of the present Administration: it is the attitude of the people of the United 

States, and it is recognized as a just and proper attitude by the statesmen of both of the great English 

parties. It is an established fact so far as the English-speaking world is concerned. 

[15 April 1896] 

- 308 - 

NO EXECUTIVE ACTION TAKEN 

Meeting of the Venezuelan Boundary Commission and its Work 

WASHINGTON, April 14.—The regular weekly meeting of the Venezuelan Boundary 

Commission to-day was devoted to the reading of the reports made by the various members on the 

sub-topics to which they were individually assigned. No executive action was taken, and the question 

of sending a member or members abroad to collect information was not discussed. It is not likely 

that this subject will be taken up for some time, as a mass of matter is expected shortly by the 

commission from the Venezuelan Minister in Washington, which will undoubtedly prove of much 

value, consisting, as it does, of certified copies of original documents and a number of maps relating 

to the disputed territory. 

For many years the Venezuelan Government has been collecting material from original sources 

at Rome, Madrid, The Hague, and London, and these documents, as stated in these dispatches some 

days ago, are now being translated, under the direction of Señor Andrade, the Venezuelan Minister 

here. Their bearing on the work of the commission is important, in view of their certified 

authenticity, and a number of them embrace the full text of papers from which extracts only were 

given in the British Blue Book [which] presented Lord Salisbury’s side of the case. 

The commission has received from England a notification that errors existing in the Blue Book 

would be corrected in an additional publication, which will also present the full text of documents 

only partially given in the original publication In addition, Mr. Scruggs, ex-Minister of the United 

States to Venezuela, and counsel for the Venezuelan Government before the commission, has 

459


furnished more material from Caracas, with maps of the British and Venezuelan possessions, so that 

the commission has a vast store of material to assist in its deliberations. 

[15 April 1896] 

- 309 - 

BLUE BOOK UNRELIABLE 

IMPORTANT EVIDENCE AS TO THE VENEZUELAN CASE SUPPRESSED 

Venezuelan Government Points Out What Seems an Intentional Omission of Part of a 

Document—It Appears that Prior to Schomburgk’s Time There Were No Records 

as to the Boundary Line in British Guiana 

WASHINGTON, April 17.—The Venezuelan Government has laid before the High 

Commission an authentic document secured recently among the official records of the colony of 

British Guiana which throws grave suspicion upon the accuracy of the Salisbury Blue Book, upon 

which England expressed a willingness to rest her claim to the disputed territory. This newly found 

document, in the opinion of those impartially studying the merits of the controversy, calls for a full 

and explicit explanation from Great Britain to the Parliament for whose accurate information the 

Blue Book ostensibly was published. The inaccuracies do not appear in Prof. Pollock’s argument, 

but in what purports to be the presentation of all the evidence in the case. 

The disclosure relates to Document No. 17, which commences on Page 181 of the official 

publication, continues over four pages, and amounts to considerably more than a full newspaper 

column. The document in question is the letter from Gov. Light of the colony to the Marquis of 

Normanby, dated July 15, 1839, transmitting a report from Schomburgk regarding his travels under 

the auspices of the Royal Geographical Society before the distinguished botanist had been employed 

by the Government to devise a provisional boundary line. As presented in the Blue Book, this letter 

opens as follows: 

Mr. Schomburgk, employed by the Geographical Society to obtain information in the interior of British Guiana 

and adjoining countries, who has lately arrived at Georgetown, having furnished me with the annexed memoir and 

map, I am enabled to reply to your Lordship’s dispatch No 11, dated 12th of March, and to that of your Lordship’s 

predecessor. No. 74, dated 1st December, 1838. 

Right at this point in the middle of the opening paragraph the British official editors of the 

evidence have cut out the only matter in the letter that bears upon the merits of the dispute, and 

have laid themselves open to a charge of garbling an official paper. In the Blue Book the document 

goes on from this point to speak of other matters irrelevant to the dispute and immaterial to a 

consideration of the case. The remainder of the paragraph, as well as the second paragraph of the 

letter, both of which were suppressed without the formality of the usual marks showing that any 

omission was made, and which are now supplied through Venezuelan channels, were as follows: 

I shall observe there are no documents in the archives of the colony respecting the western or southern limits 

of British Guiana. The memoir of Mr. Schomburgk is, therefore, valuable; it confirms the opinions of the 

Superintendent of Essequibo, as to the western limits and points out what may be fit subjects for discussion with 

460


the different Governments whose territories border on British Guiana. The Colombian Government is desirous of 

ascertaining theirs. 

I have had the honor of mentioning in my dispatch No. 105, dated Dec. 17, the predatory excursions of the 

Brazilians near Fort St Joachim. Mr. Youd, the missionary, has been warned to leave Pirara; the Brazilian authorities 

have claimed it, and having sent an officer to discover an ancient boundary mark within the limit, it appears he 

assumed the identity of an isolated stump of a tree with the landmark sought. The limits of this province may be 

everywhere defined by rivers and chains of mountains more conveniently than by parallels, which may be proved by 

Mr. Schomburgk’s memoir. Under the impression that, as civilization has begun among the aborigines that the 

British nation alone can protect them, I cannot too strongly urge the immediate decision of the limits of British 

Guiana 

Mr. Schomburgk’s merits as a geographer will naturally point him out as a fit person to be employed in any 

commission for the question of boundary. 

The fact here established that there were no documents in the archives of the colony respecting 

the western or southern limits of British Guiana at that critical period when both Brazil and 

Colombia were resisting the first encroachments of England, in the opinion of those now studying 

the question, seriously weakens the British contention, and for that reason apparently there was no 

hesitation in suppressing it. 

The duty of the Venezuelan High Commission is practically to find out whether the limits of 

British Guiana have been extended since the Monroe doctrine was enunciated in 1823, British 

Guiana having been ceded to the English by the Dutch in 1814. The confession that in 1839 the 

colony was without a document bearing upon its southern or western boundary transfers the entire 

burden of proof upon Great Britain, and is held to invalidate all the British claims which cannot be 

substantiated fully by Dutch and Spanish records. Under ordinary circumstances the great mass of 

those archives quoted in the Blue Book might have had great weight with the High Commission, but 

the discovery of falsification in quoting an English letter has thrown a cloud over all the other pages 

of the book, and to-day the entire publication is regarded with distrust. 

Señor Andrade, the Venezuelan Minister here, is having translated for the commission the report 

of Don José Digurja, the Spanish Colonial Governor in 1763 to the Crown, which will be presented 

to the commission in a week or two. The Blue Book gave two and a half pages to this document, 

which is considered by all concerned the most important extant on the relative limits of Dutch and 

Spanish territory before England appeared on the scene in South America. The closely written 

manuscript of this authenticated report, which is now being translated, covers 398 pages, and the 

commission will be enabled to neglect the British extracts of it and study the complete report. 

[18 April 1896] 

- 310 - 

GLOOMY VENEZUELA VISION 

American Correspondent of The Times Blames Salisbury 

LONDON. April 21.—The Times will to-morrow publish a long dispatch from G. W. Smalley, its 

correspondent in America, which is devoted to dispelling the illusions that the Venezuelan 

boundary dispute has passed a dangerous stage, that the negotiations are prospering, and that the 

British Blue Book on the subject created a favorable impression in the United States. 

461


Mr. Smalley says that not one of the foregoing beliefs is well founded. No agreement as to the 

principles has been reached, and the negotiations are at a standstill. Nobody seems to know when or 

how they will be renewed or the dead-lock removed. If the American Commission draws the 

Venezuela boundary adverse to Great Britain’s claims the alternative stated in President Cleveland’s 

message will have to be faced. 

Mr. Smalley casts the onus for this on Lord Salisbury, who rejected the proposals made by the 

Washington Government in February, and who does not appear to have made counter proposals. 

The dispatch dilates upon the reasons for prompt action for, it says, the uncertainties are many, and 

the perils grave. 

The Times commenting upon the foregoing, will to-morrow say that it cannot fully share the 

gloomy anticipations contained in the dispatch although the reminder is not, perhaps, untimely. It 

contends that Mr. Smalley elsewhere in his dispatch shows that Lord Salisbury has taken other 

action for opening a discussion of a scheme for general arbitration, to which the paper attaches 

importance. 

It also contends that if the general project fails, Great Britain ought yet to be able with prudence 

to resume the specific case with Venezuela. The paper remarks upon the good will of the 

Washington Government testified in Mr. Cleveland’s eloquent letter to Consul Parker, the 

sentiments in which are reciprocated in all circles here. 

[22 April 1896] 

- 311 - 

BRITISH PRESS ON VENEZUELA 

A Variety the of Opinions Expressed on the Boundary Difficulty 

LONDON, April 22.—The St. James’s Gazette, commenting on the dispatch to The Times from G. 

W. Smalley, the correspondent of that paper in the United States, representing that the Venezuelan 

dispute is still a question of great gravity and cause for alarm, says: 

“The revival of the Venezuelan question reminds us that even the wars in Africa are trivial 

compared with the real danger which has existed in the west since December. The American 

demand that the United States shall decide our quarrels and settle our frontiers is inadmissible, and 

no amount of talking around the matter will make it anything else. President Cleveland in his 

message last December referred everything to a special commission and then, when it was too late, 

attempted to negotiate. We are now told to be prepared for a report that is hostile to Great Britain. 

What will happen then? 

“Either the Washington Government will allow the report to remain a dead letter or carry out its 

threat to enforce a decision by resort to war. There is reason to believe that an attempt will now be 

made to work up an English feeling in favor of the surrender of our Government. This is vain. Our 

position is simply that British frontier questions are matters for negotiation only with the parties 

concerned.” 

The Pall Mall Gazette says: “The American correspondent of The Times seems to be in a state of 

undue alarm, possibly because Lord Salisbury did not accept his plan of settlement.” 

462


The Globe says: “All the hopes of the weak-kneed of the compliance of Great Britain with the 

views of the United States are groundless.” 

The Westminster Gazette says: “Except for a petty amour propre there was no reason why Lord 

Salisbury should have rejected the proposal for a joint commission.” 

The Echo asks: “Does Lord Salisbury represent the general judgment of the Cabinet? If he does 

not, he should either acquiesce therein or cease to occupy the offices of Prime Minister and 

Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and give way to the Duke of Devonshire. We should then be 

in safer hands.” 

The Daily Chronicle (Liberal) to-morrow will say: “The seriousness of the situation may be 

gathered from the dispatch sent to The Times by its American correspondent. The article will 

commend the serious spirit in which The Times receives Mr. Smalley’s dispatch, and will appeal to 

Lord Salisbury to settle the trouble and vouchsafe the crowning mercy of a permanent treaty of 

arbitration with the United States.” 

The Daily News will say that the alarmist dispatch sent by Mr. Smalley is not justified by the state 

of the case as known by the Ministers. The News’s article will support Lord Salisbury’s attitude 

respecting the settled districts, and will say it must not be supposed that nothing but Lord Salisbury’s 

amour propre is concerned or that he ought to yield the point immediately because of Mr. Smalley’s 

impatience. 

Nevertheless, the paper will express regret at the delay in the settlement or the questions at issue 

and urge the Premier to hasten to define the settled districts so that negotiations may be resumed. 

The News will express regret also that the United States Government is not able to agree to Great 

Britain’s proposed treaty of arbitration. 

The News will further say that the remarks of United Status Ambassador Bayard at Birmingham 

to-day prove that the existing peaceful relations between Great Britain and the United States will 

remain unchanged, and pays tribute to the Envoys who have represented the United States in 

England for years past, saying that the peace and good will expressed in their collected speeches 

would furnish a whole gospel of international brotherhood, none of them, however, being finer in 

tone than Mr. Bayard’s. 

[23 April 1896] 

- 312 - 

QUESTIONS ABOUT VENEZUELA 

Labouchere Is Evaded, but Vernon-Harcourt Is Threatening 

LONDON, April 23.—In the House of Commons to-day Mr. Labouchere asked the 

Government a number of questions in regard to the Venezuelan dispute. 

Among them were whether the plan proposed by the United States Government to refer the 

Venezuelan frontier dispute to a commission composed of two English, two American, and one 

neutral member, or the Chief Justices of England and the United States and one neutral member, 

had been declined by Great Britain; whether Venezuela had been excluded from the general scheme 

of arbitration which Great Britain had submitted to the United States; whether negotiations 

463


between England and the United States still continue, and whether any agreement is probable before 

the United States Congress adjourns in May. 

In reply to these questions Mr. Curzon, Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, said that 

negotiations with the United States in regard to Venezuela were still proceeding, but it was not 

advisable at this time to make any statement on the subject. 

Mr. Labouchere asked whether the Government expected a favorable result from the 

negotiations. Mr. Curzon said that that was unquestionably the hope of her Majesty’s Government. 

Sir William Harcourt said: “I give notice that I will ask a question upon this subject Monday next.” 

[24 April 1896] 

- 313 - 

GRAVITY OF VENEZUELA AFFAIR 

Times’s Correspondent Says He Told the Views of the Executive 

LONDON, April 24.—The Times will to-morrow publish a dispatch from George W. Smalley, its 

American correspondent, affirming that the statements contained in his dispatch of Tuesday last are 

the views of the American Executive. He says that be might have used stronger language without 

exaggerating the apprehension existing in Washington. 

The Times, commenting upon Mr. Smalley’s dispatch, expresses surprise at the condition of affairs 

that he sets forth, and argues that Washington is under a misunderstanding. 

In the dispatch published by The Times on Tuesday last Mr. Smalley said that the illusions that the 

Venezuelan boundary dispute had passed a dangerous stage, that the negotiations were prospering, 

and that the British Blue Book on the Venezuelan matter had created a favorable impression in the 

United States were not well founded. 

He added that no agreement as to principles had been reached and that the negotiations were at 

a standstill. Nobody seemed to know when or how they would be renewed and the dead-lock 

removed. 

If the American Commission drew the Venezuela boundary adverse to Great Britain’s claims, 

the alternative stated in President Cleveland’s message would have to be faced. Mr. Smalley puts the 

onus for this on Lord Salisbury, who had rejected the proposals made by the Washington 

Government in February, and who did not appear to have made counter proposals. 

The dispatch dilated upon the reasons for prompt action, for the uncertainties were many and 

the perils grave. 

[25 April 1896] 

- 314 - 

PROGRESS IN VENEZUELA CASE 

Balfour’s Reply to Harcourt and Conditions in Washington 

464


LONDON, April 27.—Sir William Harcourt, in accordance with notice given by him April 23, 

asked the Government what, if any, arrangements had been made to conclude by arbitration a 

settlement of the differences between the United States and Great Britain in regard to Venezuela. 

A. J. Balfour, First Lord of the Treasury, said that arrangements to arbitrate in respect to the 

Venezuelan and other questions was a matter which both the British and the United States 

Governments had in view. 

The latest communications on the subject which had been received from the United States, 

Friday, were under consideration. They dealt with the general question of arbitration and the 

Venezuelan dispute. To give further information concerning the matter, he concluded, would at the 

present time be inexpedient. 

[28 April 1896] 

465


466

The British Guiana-Venezuela Border Dispute – Reports from The New York Times (1887-1904) 

- Part 10 - 

May – July 1896 

467


468


- 315 - 

Vernon-Harcourt Urges Investigation and Diplomatic Settlement 

LONDON, May 5.—Sir William Vernon-Harcourt, leader of the Opposition in the House of 

Commons, spoke at a meeting to-night of the National Liberal Club. . . 

Sir William . . . said that a great majority of the people of the United States and Great Britain 

were eager for an early and peaceful settlement of the Venezuela question. He confessed that he was 

impatient that a settlement was so long delayed. It was to settle such questions that diplomacy 

existed. No personal pride or diplomatic obstinacy should be allowed to prevent a settlement. 

[6 May 1896] 

- 316 - 

SECOND VENEZUELA BLUE BOOK 

It Is Not to be Published Until Delivered at Washington 

LONDON, May 6.—The announcement is made that a second Blue Book on the Venezuelan 

matter will be ready of May 13, but that it will not be published until a copy shall have been 

delivered to the authorities at Washington. 

[7 May 1896] 

- 317 - 

PROF. BURR GOING TO HOLLAND 

To Secure Information for the Venezuelan Commission 

WASHINGTON, May 8.—The Venezuelan Commission’s chief historical expert, Prof. George 

L. Burr will sail for Holland to-morrow to investigate the Dutch records bearing upon the Guianan 

boundary dispute. Prof. Burr, who holds the Chair of History at Cornell University, has been in 

Washington for the past two months developing evidence relating to Dutch claims in South 

America. He is said to have extraordinary personal qualifications for the researches he is to make at 

The Hague, Middleburg, Amsterdam, and other cities of the Netherlands, where documents are 

believed to exist which cannot fail to influence the final decision of the commission. 

In the British Blue Book, nearly all the allusions to Dutch records are given in a general way, 

without precise reference to the volume or archives where they can be found and verified or 

amplified. As that parliamentary publication also fails to give copies of important documents that in 

all likelihood are extant, as they are referred to by many historical writers, the commission has 

deemed it advisable to have Prof. Burr make an exhaustive examination of all the evidence upon 

which many Blue Book arguments rest. Prof. Burr’s studies with the commission developed a 

469


number of statements by both English and Dutch claiming to be based upon original records, and 

an attempt will be made to settle beyond a doubt many discrepancies and inconsistencies, or to find 

explanations for them. In sending this expert abroad, the Venezuelan Commission gives notice that 

it does not propose, to base its findings of fact in the dispute upon any authorities, however 

eminent, but to go back to the source from which those authorities derived their information or 

claimed to have done so, and ascertain with certainty the real facts. 

Prof. J. Franklin Jameson of Brown University has been here for the past week, pursuing a 

course of study similar to that of Prof. Burr, among the vast amount of documents, books and maps 

that have been collected. The commission is now looking forward to the receipt of the 

supplementary Blue Book, which is promised for next week, and which is expected to contain 

unedited copies of all the documents quoted in the first book, which, by their incomplete condition 

and the suppression of portions favorable to Venezuela caused such unfavorable comment. Soon 

after this paper appears, an expert, similar to Prof. Burr, will probably be sent to Spain. The original 

documents from Venezuela’s claim are still in process of translation, and may not be presented to 

the commission for several weeks. 

[9 May 1896] 

- 318 - 

VENEZUELA AGREES TO PAY 

She Does Not Consent, However, to Apologize to Great Britain 

CARACAS, Venezuela, May 18.— The Venezuelan Government has agreed to pay the ₤1,600 

demanded by Great Britain for the Uruan incident, (the arrest and imprisonment of a British police 

officer,) on condition that it is considered simply as indemnity for personal damages, and not as 

affecting the boundary dispute. 

The Venezuelan Government, however, has not consented to make a public apology to Great 

Britain as a prerequisite to the resumption of diplomatic relations, though it is understood that the 

United States, in carrying out its friendly purpose as an adviser of Venezuela, counseled that this 

condition should be complied with, in accordance with the terms of the British demand. 

[19 May 1896] 

- 319 - 

BRITISH GUIANA ADVERTISED 

One Result of President Cleveland’s Message on Venezuela 

WASHINGTON, May 23.—Advices from British Guiana just received by the Bureau of 

American Republics indicate that the colonists are deriving considerable comfort from the fact that 

President Cleveland’s message to Congress on Venezuelan affairs has given British Guiana much 

valuable advertising. It is claimed that where even Englishmen a year ago knew of Demerara only as 

470


a place where sugar came from, they had their attention attracted to it immediately after the 

appointment of the Venezuelan Commission, and the varied resources of the colony were made 

familiar to everybody, with the effect of attracting immigration and capital. 

One of the Georgetown papers, referring to this matter, discloses a State secret. The Georgetown 

Chronicle declares that at the height of the excitement Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, Secretary for the 

Colonies, “set on foot a scheme to colonize the frontier, so that actual occupation might be added to 

the numerous indisputable claims to control the territory in the northwest of the colony.” “We 

know,” says The Chronicle, “that he forwarded to the Colonial Government an offer made by a 

syndicate of home capitalists of whose bona fides he was thoroughly convinced.” It seems that 

leading colonists who were consulted privately in the matter did not think the terms of Mr. 

Chamberlain’s syndicate were liberal enough, and the matter was dropped. The significant fact 

developed by these statements is that just when the British Prime Minister was giving official 

assurances to the United States as to England’s intention in the Venezuelan matter the Colonial 

Secretary was apparently fostering a scheme which did not exactly accord with Lord Salisbury’s 

assurances. 

The latest Guiana papers give information respecting the alleged violation of Venezuelan 

customs laws by the schooner New Day, which incident it was feared at one time would lead to a 

British ultimatum. It is now admitted, as stated in The United Press dispatches at the time, that British 

Guiana claims and the boundary controversy were not affected by the incident, but that the vessel’s 

cargo was destined for Venezuelan territory for which an Englishman friendly to President Crespo’s 

Government held a Venezuelan concession. 

The Georgetown Daily Chronicle contains the following: 

Respecting the statements that have recently been published to the effect that her Majesty’s steamship Cordella 

was to enter the Orinoco to release the schooner New Day, and that she would be opposed in her errand by the 

Venezuelan forces, a Trinidad contemporary understands that this Is the result of complications arising out of the 

grant by the Venezuelan Government of the old Manoa concession. Mr. Turnbull, an Englishman, is the 

concessionaire of iron-mining rights in the Imotaca region. He had some mining machinery and plant brought out 

here, (to Trinidad,) and it was placed on board the schooner New Day, a British vessel trading among the islands, to 

be taken up the Orinoco. By the Venezuelan law a vessel cannot be engaged in the coasting trade along the Main 

unless it is flying the Venezuelan flag. The schooner committed irregularities in landing the machinery at some port 

up the Orinoco. It should have gone right up to Ciudad Bolivar and had the cargo passed, and then brought it back 

and discharged it. As a result or the irregularity, the machinery and a steam launch were seized by the authorities and 

the schooner held. Mr. Turnbull is now in Caracas, trying to obtain the release of the schooner and cargo. 

[24 May 1896] 

- 320 - 

IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 

Great Britain Still Negotiating on the Venezuela Question 

LONDON, June 11.—In the House of Commons to-day Right Hon. George N. Curzon, Under 

Secretary for Foreign Affairs, stated in reply to an interrogation by Mr. Thomas R. Buchanan, 

Scotch Liberal, that the negotiations between Great Britain and the United States upon the 

471


Venezuelan question would proceed, but that the Government could not make any further 

statement in regard to the matter at present. 

[12 June 1896] 

- 321 - 

VENEZUELA TAKES ACTION 

A Force of Her Troops Enters the Disputed Territory 

KINGSTON, Jamaica, June 17.—According to advices received here, the territory in dispute 

between Great Britain and Venezuela has been entered by a force of troops from the latter country. 

The Venezuelan soldiers compelled a party of British surveyors, who were at work in the district, 

to suspend operations. 

The surveying party retreated and appealed to the authorities for support. 

LONDON, June 17.—Official reports have been received at the Foreign Office of an incursion 

into British Guiana by Venezuelan troops. 

[18 June 1896] 

- 322 - 

THE BRITISH ARE AROUSED 

Venezuela’s Incursion into the Disputed Territory the Cause 

LONDON, June 18.—The St. James’s Gazette says that the Colonial Office is taking a very serious 

view of the incursion of Venezuela, into the disputed territory. 

“It is impossible,” the paper adds, “to permit the boundary decision to be anticipated by forcible 

violations of the frontier, and it is hoped that the Government at Caracas will explain and apologize; 

otherwise, it may be necessary for England to take strong measures.” 

In the House of Commons to-day Mr. George N. Curzon, Under Foreign Secretary, stated that 

the Government would continue its efforts to expedite the settlement of the Venezuela dispute by 

some form of arbitration, and would shortly lay upon the table of the House the papers regarding 

the negotiations in that direction. 

[19 June 1896] 

- 323 - 

LOOKING TOWARD ARBITRATION 

Great Britain Willing to Accept It in the Venezuelan Case 

472


LONDON, June 19.—The Foreign Office officials deny the truth of the report that a conflict 

has taken place between Venezuelans and the British at Point Barima, in the disputed territory of 

Guiana. The Foreign Office is not informed that there has been any trouble in the disputed territory 

whatever. 

In the House of Commons to-day Mr. George N. Curzon, Under Foreign Secretary, stated that 

Sir Julian Pauncefote, British Ambassador at Washington, had been authorized to receive and report 

any proposals that might be made to him by the representative of Venezuela in Washington in 

regard to the Venezuelan boundary dispute. The representative of Venezuela in Washington had 

been so informed, but so far, Mr. Curzon said, he had not made any proposals. 

Negotiations between Great Britain and the United States, Mr. Curzon continued, were in 

progress for an agreement upon a treaty of arbitration. With reference to the frontier question, he 

said, as far as he Government was concerned, the failure to settle the difficulty with Venezuela had 

not offered any obstacle in the way of the conclusion of the general arrangements respecting 

arbitration, which the Government hoped to see completed. 

[20 June 1896] 

- 324 - 

ARRESTED BY THE VENEZUELANS 

GEORGETOWN, British Guiana, June 22.—It is learned here that Mr. Harrison, a British 

official, while overseeing a number laborers who were employed in making a road from Barima to 

Cuyuni, was arrested on June 15 on an order from Caracas and taken to the Venezuelan station 

opposite Yuruan. The arrest has caused much excitement among the British there, who look to 

Great Britain to take immediate action in the matter. 

[23 June 1896] 

- 325 - 

MR. HARRISON’S ARREST 

MORE TROUBLE BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND VENEZUELA 

One English Paper Calls on the Government to Take Vigorous Action at Once—Señor 

Andrade, the Venezuelan Minister, Thinks the Incident Has Been Greatly Exaggerated— 

May Interfere with the Settlement of the Uruan Case 

KINGSTON, Jamaica, June 23.—The report received here from Georgetown, British Guiana 

yesterday, that Mr. Harrison, the chief of a British Guiana surveying party which was engaged in 

constructing a road from Barima to Cuyuni, was arrested on June 15, by orders from Caracas, and 

conveyed to the Venezuelan station opposite Yuruan, is confirmed by advices received here this 

morning from several sources. 

473


LONDON, June 23.—The Government has received a cablegram from Georgetown, British 

Guiana, confirming the report of the capture by the Venezuelans of the British civil engineer 

Harrison, who is now detained at the Venezuelan station opposite Yuruan. 

The St. James’s Gazette this afternoon publishes an article upon the arrest of Mr. Harrison, the 

British official, who, on June 15, while at the head of a number of engineers and laborers engaged in 

making a road from Barima to Cuyuni, was arrested upon an order from Caracas and conveyed to 

Venezuelan territory. The Gazette vigorously prods the Government, and demands to know how long 

they will continue to endure the insolence of the Government at Caracas out of regard for the 

susceptibilities of the Government at Washington. 

WASHINGTON, June 23.—Señor Andrade, the Venezuelan Minister, though still without 

official advices concerning the reported arrest of the British surveyor, Harrison, in the disputed 

territory along the Cuyuni River, expresses confidence that the importance of the affair will be found 

to have been considerably magnified. He calls attention to the fact that the Venezuelan post on the 

Cuyuni is connected with Caracas by telegraph, the Government lines extending through all that 

portion of the country which had not up to the past year been occupied by British colonial police. In 

his opinion it would be by this means alone that the alleged occurrence of June 15 could have so 

soon reached the outside world, and as all the publications emanate from Georgetown via London, 

he is sure that the arrest must have taken place very early this month, as over a week would be 

consumed in getting the news by river to Georgetown. 

Moreover, declares Mr. Andrade, the re ported arrest is wholly unlike the affair known as the 

Uruan incident, for which Venezuela was willing to make reparation without apology. On the Uruan, 

year before last, Venezuelan soldiers crossed the river where the British were cutting wood, and 

dragged off a colonial policeman into Venezuelan territory, while in the latest case the arrested man 

was not an officer and was on land concededly under Venezuelan authority pending the boundary 

settlement. 

The Minister thought he would naturally hear if any representations regarding the affair had been 

made by Great Britain, but he had not yet heard of any. Nor did he believe any complaint could 

stand when all the reports agreed that the affair occurred in territory which had never been occupied 

by the British, but had all along been in the peaceful possession of his own Government. 

It is probable that this latest episode may complicate the final settlement of the Uruan incident. 

The settlement of this affair was left with Sir Julian Pauncefote and Señor Andrade, the 

representatives, respectively, at Washington of Great Britain and Venezuela. The delay in reaching a 

satisfactory adjustment of the case has been caused by the great length of time necessary for the 

exchange of correspondence. Communications, for example, addressed by Sir Julian to Mr. Andrade, 

were forwarded through the slow medium of the mails to Caracas. As the Latin-Americans are never 

disposed to act hastily in matters even of the greatest importance, several weeks would ordinarily 

elapse before Mr. Andrade received a reply from his Government. When this was communicated to 

Sir Julian a further delay of a fortnight or more would occur before the latter could be made 

acquainted with the wishes of the London Foreign Office. 

Some months ago Venezuela expressed a willingness to pay the indemnity. She has also 

transferred the military commander in whose department the incident occurred to another post. The 

Venezuelans object to any further concessions believing that these should sufficiently satisfy Great 

Britain of their intention to act fairly in the premises. Great Britain, as has been previously stated in 

these dispatches, demands an apology, and at this point the negotiations are dead-locked. What 

effect the more recent incident will have upon the final settlement can only be conjectured, but it is 

474


obvious from the utterances of the British press that they will now be more insistent upon an 

apology than ever. 

The British Ambassador, on account of this and other pending matters of importance, has not 

been able to leave for Newport, as it was his intention to do before the Summer had so far advanced 

this year. It is deemed probable that some important arbitration developments in the line of the 

recent statement of Mr. Curzon to the British Parliament may soon occur, but on this subject no 

information can be obtained either from the British Embassy or Secretary Olney, and the 

Venezuelan Minister asserts that he is without advices on the subject. 

[24 June 1896] 

- 326 - 

Appointments in British Guiana 

COLON. June 23.—Advices received here from Georgetown, British Guiana, are to the effect 

that The Demerara Official Gazette publishes an ordinance appointing certain Indians in the interior 

Captains and Constables, with a uniform commission and salary. The object is to check the 

encroachments of neighbors. The new artillery that was mounted for the defense of Georgetown 

has been tried in the presence of the Governor, Sir Augustus Hemming. 

[24 June 1896] 

- 327 - 

THE VENEZUELA COMMISSION 

Each Member Will Continue His Work During the Summer 

WASHINGTON, June 23.—The Venezuelan Government has presented to the Venezuelan 

Commission the second volume of its certified copies of Spanish archives bearing upon the 

boundary dispute, and has promised the third and concluding volume in a few days. 

These books consist of about 300 printed pages each, and are so exhaustive of the material 

believed to exist among Spanish historical records that the commission has concluded from their 

examination that it will be superfluous in all probability to send agents to Madrid for original 

research, as it was at first thought to be necessary. It will trust entirely to the British blue books and 

the Venezuelan documents, and it is believed that neither Government has overlooked any evidence 

at Seville or Madrid. 

The commission is expecting further important results from the investigation of its 

representatives in Holland and Rome, and has decided in view of the character of evidence now 

being developed not to attempt to reach definite conclusions on the many points at issue with 

unnecessary haste, but to wait a few months longer before arriving at a decision on the dispute. All 

the members will continue their studies of the evidence, and the reports which have been presented 

475


by the commission experts, and although separated much of the time from their colleagues, will each 

be in close touch with their office at Washington during July and August. 

Justice Brewer has already gone to Lake Champlain and Prof. Gilman to North East Harbor, 

Me. Both have their secretaries with them and expect to accomplish more work in the next month 

or so than could be done in Washington during the heated term. Prof. Andrew D. White is now at 

Ithaca and Judge Alvey is at Hagerstown, Md. They have agreed to meet the other members at any 

time during the Summer that a consultation may be thought desirable, and it is probable that such a 

meeting will be had next month at Boston. 

Secretary Mallet-Provost will be in Washington at least twice a month during the Summer, and 

will be in constant communication with the Commissioners. The clerical force will be busily engaged 

in keeping up the records, reports, and map work not yet completed. Commissioner Coudert is the 

only member who will go abroad, and he will visit Rome to examine and report upon an interesting 

collection from the Vatican affecting the case. 

[24 June 1896] 

- 328 - 

MEDIATION NOW THE WAY 

GREAT BRITAIN SEEKS UNITED STATES INFLUENCE IN VENEZUELA 

Departing from the Ultimatum Methods Formerly Employed, the British Government Asks 

the Good Offices of the State Department to Secure Crown Surveyor Harrison’s Release— 

Arrested for Working in Disputed Territory 

LONDON, June 24.—A representative of The United Press was informed at the Foreign Office 

to-day that the Government would certainly take immediate and energetic measures to obtain the 

release of Mr. Harrison, the British surveyor who was recently arrested in British Guiana and is now 

detained at the Venezuelan station, opposite Yuruan. The British Government’s action, the Foreign 

Office authorities added, would probably be taken through the offices of the United States 

Government. 

WASHINGTON, June 24.—As soon as Secretary Olney returns to the State Department, where 

he is confidently expected to-morrow, he will receive from Sir Julian Pauncefote, the British 

Ambassador a request from the British Government to use his good office with Venezuela to secure 

the release from imprisonment of Crown Surveyor Harrison, who is reported to have been arrested 

by Venezuelan police while he was engaged in constructing a road connecting the Barima and 

Cuyuni Rivers in the disputed territory. This action of Great Britain is considered in diplomatic 

circles a radical departure from the ultimatum methods hitherto practiced on American republics, 

and much significance it attached to this fact as probably indicating the considerable progress made 

toward an arbitration agreement, and the practical acknowledgment that the United States is a party 

in interest in the Venezuelan dispute as well as in future controversies regarding territory on the 

American Continent 

While it is universally admitted that the new incident is exceedingly unfortunate just at this 

juncture, there is great diversity of opinion in fixing the blame. Even the British Government has the 

476


most indefinite knowledge of the exact locality where the arrest took place, although it is claimed 

that the surveying party had no authority to go outside of territory occupied exclusively by 

Englishmen for the last ten years. 

No official knowledge of the arrest has yet been received at the Venezuelan Legation, where 

confidence is expressed that the Venezuelan Government would have sent a notice of the affair, 

perhaps for the information of the United States Government, the moment the facts became known 

at Caracas. The Venezuelans, however, find considerable satisfaction in the information that Great 

Britain will appeal to Secretary Olney in the matter, as indicating that it is not considered of so 

serious a nature as at first apprehended. They place the whole blame for whatever has occurred on 

Joseph Chamberlain’s aggressive colonial policy. They point to the fact that under date of Dec. 19, 

1894, they complained to Secretary Gresham of the proposed road, upon which Surveyor Harrison 

was employed, and called attention to the fact that as the route lay in Venezuelan territory a conflict 

would be unavoidable. One paragraph of that letter reads: 

The persistency of the British Government in excluding from arbitration all that portion of the territory which 

it has held for years rendered the action of the last Commissioner of Venezuela to England null and void: rendered 

inefficacious the good intentions of the Executive of the republic, and stimulated the ambition of certain agents of 

the colony who have in view nothing but the pleasing prospect presented by a territory exceedingly rich in natural 

resources. 

Some of them on Oct. 24 last procured the introduction in the legislative chamber of Demerara, of a 

proposition looking to the construction of a road which is to unite the upper Barima with the Cuyuni, which 

involves a fresh project for the unlawful appropriation of Venezuelan territory, and the manifest tendency of which 

is to increase the difficulty of reaching a peaceful settlement of the controversy. The Secretary of the Government 

requested that the proposition should be postponed until he could consult the Colonial Department, and, what was 

still more important, obtain its approval of an application for power to raise a large loan from which could be taken 

the amount necessary to open the proposed road. The Government of Venezuela, through its Consul at Demerara, 

advised the Governor of the colony that the execution of the project would undoubtedly bring about a collision 

with the Venezuelan authorities in that region, and would be the cause of further embittering a controversy which it 

is important to both parties to put on a more friendly footing. 

This appeal was effective for the time being. The road was abandoned until in August last year, 

when the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Joseph Chamberlain, sent to British Guiana his call for 

the colony to raise funds for machine guns, an increased police force, and the construction of the 

Barima Road. This was resisted by the Colonial Legislature, with the exception of defense armament, 

until the arrival of the new Governor from England, a few months ago, when they were induced to 

appropriate the money or a survey the road. 

Venezuelans now claim that the responsibility rests wholly with Great Britain after the warning 

that went to the Foreign Office through colonial as well as through United States channels. It is 

contended at the Legation here that the Venezuelan authorities who made the arrest must of 

necessity have been in their own territory, as they are not permitted to cross the frontier under any 

circumstances. 

The two English ports are on the right bank of the Cuyuni and the left hank of the Amacura. 

Those of Venezuela are directly opposite them, and this status quo has been rigidly observed by the 

Venezuelans. In their opinion Harrison must have been arrested within the Venezuelan line, and 

only after warning to keep out. The Venezuelans to a man also are aware that they have everything 

to gain by peaceful methods, and it is incredible to their friends here that they could have so 

disobeyed orders as to break the status quo. It is said, however, that if Secretary Olney calls on 

477


Venezuela in response to Great Britain’s request, that a full report will undoubtedly be forthcoming 

as soon as the Caracas authorities can investigate. 

[25 June 1896] 

- 329 - 

GREAT SATISFACTION IN ENGLAND 

The British Press Speak Well of the United States and Venezuela 

LONDON, June 26.—The Chronicle, commenting on the statement that Venezuela had ordered 

the release of Crown Surveyor Harrison, will to-morrow say that President Crespo acted gracefully 

and wisely. It adds that the incident has done good in showing that Great Britain and America are 

now on such terms that the former can request the good offices of the latter when Venezuela 

misbehaves. 

The Post will say it is not an altogether comforting reflection that Mr. Harrison’s release was due 

to the influence of the United States, although under the peculiar conditions of the case there was 

no very evident alternative to seeking American intervention. 

The Standard will say that it was better for all parties that Mr. Harrison’s release was effected 

through the friendly offices of the United States than by a direct peremptory demand addressed to 

Venezuela. The incident encourages the hope that it will lead to a settlement of the Anglo- 

Venezuelan dispute and the resumption of diplomatic relations. 

[27 June 1896] 

- 330 - 

ENGLAND ASKS OUR ASSISTANCE 

The Government Requested to Settle the Trouble over Harrison’s Arrest 

WASHINGTON June 25.—Sir Julian Pauncefote, the British Ambassador, called on Secretary 

Olney to-day and. it is understood, presented a request from his Government that Mr. Olney would 

use his good offices to bring about a friendly settlement of the trouble over the arrest of Harrison, 

the British surveyor, by Venezuelan police. Señor Andrade, the Venezuelan Minister, was another 

caller, and presumably came on the same business that brought Sir Julian. 

Secretary Olney said this morning that he was not yet aware of any decision of the British 

Government to make public the correspondence between her Majesty’s Ministers and the State 

Department, relating to an agreement of arbitration synchronous with its publication in the United 

States. . . 

[27 June 1896] 

478


- 331 - 

MR. HARRISON RELEASED 

VENEZUELA ACTS PROMPTLY IN ORDERING HIS FREEDOM 

No Doubt, However, that He Was Prosecuting His Surveying Work on Venezuelan 

Territory—His Location Was Not in the Disputed British Territory—The Incident 

Likely to Induce England to Submit to Arbitration 

WASHINGTON, June 26.—Minister Andrade at noon to-day received the following cablegram 

and immediately sent a copy to Secretary Olney: 

CARACAS. June 26.—Rojas, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to Venezuelan Minister at Washington: 

It was yesterday when the National Commissary of Cuyuni telegraphed occurrence. Harrison and nineteen 

others crossed to the left bank of the Cuyuni to open a road. The Sub-Commissary of Acarabesi protested in 

writing. Harrison insisted, and the Sub-Commissary took him to the post of El Dorado. As soon as the 

Government was informed thereof, it ordered the release of Harrison and asked details. 

The post, El Dorado, referred to in the cablegram, is directly across the river from the British 

station of Uruan. The dispatch confirms the impression that the Venezuelans were not at fault, and 

that the status quo observed for several years was broken by the Harrison surveying party. Secretary 

Olney will notify Sir Julian Pauncefote of Harrison’s prompt release and the circumstances under 

which he was arrested. 

Señor Rojas’s dispatch announcing Harrison’s release relieved State Department and diplomatic 

circles of the tremendous tension they have been under for several days, notwithstanding the 

prevailing confidence that the blame would not be found to rest altogether with the Venezuelans. 

The main question, which is understood to have caused Secretary Olney most concern, was the 

exact location of Harrison’s defiance of the written Venezuelan protest. All doubts on this point 

were set aside when the geographical experts consulted decided that the proposed line of road from 

the upper Barima to the Cuyuni, where the surveying party was stopped, was clearly west or the 

Schomburgk line, and therefore in territory which the British had hitherto refrained from violating. 

The Acarabesi River and the Schomburgk line are identical at and near the Cuyuni, the 

Venezuelan district in which the arrest was made being named for the river. A number of 

Englishmen and Americans are engaged in mining and other pursuits in this district, but they 

recognize Venezuelan jurisdiction and operate under Venezuelan licenses. The British Guiana police 

militia has not attempted to exercise authority in the district. 

It is thought among officials that, in view of the latest developments, public clamor in England 

against the Venezuelans will promptly subside, and that in a spirit of fair play the authorities of the 

South American republic will be treated hereafter with much greater respect. Under such 

circumstances, confidence is expressed that the incident will give a strong impetus to the movement 

in favor of settling the whole question by arbitration, instead of undoing all that had been 

accomplished through Secretary Olney’s firm and persistent demand that all boundary disputes on 

the American Continent must be included in any general arbitration treaty between England and the 


Sir Julian Pauncefote, the British Ambassador, had an interview with Secretary Olney this 

afternoon, presumably on that point. 

479


[27 June 1896] 

- 332 - 

SURVEYOR HARRISON’S ARREST 

He Was Working in Territory Never Before Claimed by Venezuela 

LONDON, June 27.—As might be supposed, the arrest of Crown Surveyor Harrison by 

Venezuelans, on what is claimed to be British territory, caused many energetic newspaper protests 

and demands that immediate action be taken to compel his release. A British official of Guiana, who 

is home on leave of absence, has supplied the Government with information regarding the locality 

where the arrest was made, and has thrown considerable light on the matter. 

The place where the trouble occurred is Aacarabisi Creek, between the Barama and Cuyuni 

Rivers. Until seven years ago the country thereabouts was covered with primeval forest. It was then 

placed in charge of Mr. Thorn, a Government agent, and a complete chain of stations was formed 

throughout the region, the area of which is 10,400 square miles. Farming grants were opened out, 

and are now well scattered along the banks of the Barama River, which is not to be confounded with 

the Barima River, the former for all its course being to the mouth of the Barima. The territory is to 

the eastward of the provisional line, within which, according to Lord Salisbury, no question of title 

can be admitted. 

Gold was discovered in the region, and the metal has already been taken to Georgetown in 

surprising quantities. Mr. Thorn still administers the territory, with the assistance of a staff, which 

includes a Magistrate, physicians, Collector of Taxes, police, and mine officers. Three public 

hospitals have been erected, at Morajhana, Arakuka, and Baramanni. A weekly steamer runs to 

Georgetown, and steam launches ply on both the Barama and Barima Rivers. Venezuela has done 

nothing to develop the country, which appears to a certain class of Englishmen to give Great Britain 

a clear title to the region. It is true however, that the Venezuelans did not seek to interfere with the 

colony until it was learned that gold had been discovered, trading developed, and that the settlers 

were prosperous. 

The official declares that the delay in the settlement of the boundary dispute is proving ruinous. 

Surveyor Harrison, he adds, is a cool-headed officer. Before he was appointed to Guiana be was in 

the service of the Canadian Government, and took part in the suppression of the Riel rebellion. 

[28 June 1896] 

- 333 - 


State Department Officials Irritated over Their Troubles 

WASHINGTON, July 2.—State Department officials do not conceal a certain irritation in 

discussing the latest phase of the Venezuelan boundary dispute with Great Britain, growing out of 

the recent arrest of Mr. Harrison’s engineering party by the Venezuelan troops. 

480


The department was informed to-day that the arrest of the English engineers was without 

justification, inasmuch as they were strictly within the limits of the territory held by the British for 

more than ten years. This raises a question as to the accuracy of the reports received through 

Venezuelan channels, which were that the British were trespassers on Venezuelan soil. Advices 

received to-day state that the arrest occurred at the confluence of the Acarabise River, at a point east 

of the Schomburgk line. 

That the engineers were promptly released is a circumstance which is not sufficiently satisfying 

to the British Foreign Office, if its sentiment be properly reflected in the London press. The English 

Government will demand an apology and a money indemnity before the incident shall be regarded 

as closed. Coming as it does at a time when the Uruan difficulty of a year ago was in a fair way of 

settlement, it complicates the situation, and will undoubtedly delay that harmonious adjustment of 

relations between Venezuela and Great Britain which is considered a necessary precedent of the 

boundary dispute. 

The Venezuelan Legation is without later advices from Caracas than those printed in these 

dispatches several days ago. But the State Department has used the cables freely in communicating 

with the United States Minister at the Venezuelan capital, and it is not doubted that the 

embarrassments which this country must suffer in connection with the matter have been made clear 

to President Crespo. 

The Venezuelan Government has been flatly informed that Great Britain will not be satisfied 

with the payment of a small sum of money as compensation for the arrest at Sergt. Barnes and 

several of his subordinates a year ago, which has now become a part of the diplomatic history of the 

two countries, and is known as the “Uruan incident.” President Crespo has been informed that the 

punishment of the commander of the department in which the arrest occurred, and the payment or 

the indemnity, must be followed also by an apology which will go further than all other 

considerations combined. 

The Venezuelan contention is that an apology would be tantamount to an acknowledgment of 

Great Britain’s ownership of the territory in question, notwithstanding it was east at the Schomburgk 

line. To this the British reply that if the Venezuelans did not know they were in the wrong, they 

would have given Lord Salisbury no satisfaction whatever. In other words, if Venezuela is willing to 

punish the officer responsible for the arrest and pay the indemnity for the indignity imposed upon 

them, it is proper that they should make a complete reparation, which would include an apology 

also. It is Venezuela’s refusal to make this apology that has lengthened the delay in closing the 

incident. 

The correspondence between the State Department and the British Foreign Office with 

reference to a treaty of arbitration between the two Governments will not be made public before the 

next fortnight. While the correspondence is practically finished, there are yet several important 

letters in transit which must be received and answered before it is deemed desirable that all the 

communications bearing an the subject shall be given to the press. Those who are familiar with the 

correspondence assert that its tone is most friendly, and that it indicates a disposition on both sides 

to agree to some convention which will relegate Anglo-American disputes to a. friendly board of 

arbitration. The draft of the convention can be quickly prepared, and it is expected, if the 

correspondence shall show both Governments predisposed to such a settlement of their 

disagreements, that it will be drawn before Secretary Olney and Sir Julian Pauncefote leave the city 

on their annual vacations, which, this year at least, they richly deserve, since the last twelve months 

has found them continually at their desks, with scarcely a day’s recreation. 

481


[3 July 1896] 

- 334 - 

A TREATY OF ARBITRATION 

The Correspondence Between This Country and Great Britain 

WASHINGTON, July 9.—Another delay has occurred in making public the correspondence of 

the State Department and the London Foreign Office relative to the new Anglo-American treaty of 

Arbitration. It is purposed under this treaty to refer all matters of dispute to a friendly board of 

arbitrators. It was expected that the correspondence bearing upon the subject, which has been in 

progress for some months, would be given to the press this week. 

There are, however, important letters in transit which must first be answered before this is done. 

It was announced to-day at the State Department that the correspondence would not be made 

public before the 19th inst. It is explained that there ate many letters yet to be written before the 

complete understanding is reached. 

The importance of the subject is such that it is deemed advisable to publish the correspondence 

at this stage of the proceedings, in order that both countries may understand how well their 

diplomatic representatives are succeeding. The utmost confidence is expressed at the State 

Department that the successful preparation of such a treaty will result from the efforts which are 

now being made. The correspondence may not be closed before late Autumn, but it is not doubted 

that when this conclusion is reached the way will be fully prepared for the drafting of an arbitration 

treaty which will be satisfactory to both countries, and forever preclude the possibility or war 

between the English-speaking nations. 

With the publication of the correspondence, Secretary Olney and the British Ambassador, Sir 

Julian Pauncefote, will leave the city on their annual vacations. This will not necessarily delay the 

exchange of whatever letters may be written before the correspondence is complete, but it will 

afford to each a brief session of much needed rest. 

[10 July 1896] 

- 335 - 

THE TREATY OF ARBITRATION 

Diplomatic Correspondence with Great Britain to be Published 

WASHINGTON, July 16.—Decidedly the most interesting recent event in diplomatic circles 

will be the publicity given in Great Britain and the United States on Saturday next to the 

correspondence between the two countries with reference to a treaty of arbitration. The exchange of 

letters between Secretary Olney and Lord Salisbury has been effected through the British 

Ambassador at Washington, Sir Julian Pauncefote. While the correspondence has been in progress 

for nearly half a year, the number of important letters which have passed has been comparatively 

482


limited. What it is lacking in numbers, however, is more than made up in the length of some of the 

communications, and the whole, if published, would fill many columns of print. 

The correspondence covers two points—first, with reference to a general treaty of arbitration, 

and, second, the final disposition of the boundary dispute between Venezuela and British Guiana. It 

is said at State Department that, if the treaty of arbitration be agreed upon, it will not only simplify 

but materially aid the settlement of the Venezuela dispute. The tone of the correspondence is most 

friendly, and it shows the progress that has been made with reference to arbitrating all differences 

between the great English-speaking nations. It is made public at this time in order that British and 

American citizens may see for themselves what progress is being made, but it is not definitive. There 

are numerous concessions yet to be made before a substantial agreement can be reached. 

Secretary Olney has been very insistent upon certain points, to some of which the British 

Government has yielded a reluctant consent, but upon others there is a wide divergence of opinion. 

It is still hoped that a middle course will be found upon which both Governments can agree, so that 

the treaty may be framed early next Winter and laid before the Senate in time for favorable action 

before its adjournment in March next. 

It Is expected that Secretary Olney will leave Washington for his Summer outing shortly after the 

publication of the correspondence. The British Ambassador, Sir Julian Pauncefote, and the 

Venezuelan Minister, Señor Andrade, will both take their departures at the same time, as neither, in 

view of the complications between the three countries, can absent himself from Washington until 

the Secretary sets the example. 

Titer British Government, so far as can be learned, is not likely to attach any serious importance 

to the arrest of the Crown surveyor, Mr. Harrison, in Venezuela last month. The London Foreign 

Office has ordered an investigation, and an explanation will be demanded of President Crespo, but it 

is not believed that it will complicate the settlement of the boundary dispute. That matter has gone 

so far and is regarded as of such importance that occurrences of this character, irritating as they 

necessarily are to British sensibilities, are received as a natural consequence of such contentions. So 

far as the Uruan incident (the arrest of Sergt. Barnes and other members of the British colonial 

police a year ago) is concerned, there are no new developments. Great Britain insists upon an 

apology in addition to a money indemnity. It is not certain that this apology will be made, although 

all the correspondence on the subject shows that the Venezuelan Government deprecates the 

occurrence. State Department officials indulge the hope, therefore, that under these circumstances 

and in the interest of a harmonious settlement of the boundary dispute Venezuela may make greater 

concessions than would ordinarily be the case. 

[17 July 1896] 

- 336 - 

ARBITRATION YET FAR OFF 

THE UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND ARE UNABLE TO AGREE 

Lord Salisbury Suggests a Plan and Secretary Olney Makes a Counter-Proposal – Result of 

Negotiations Thus Far Shown by the Published Correspondence—Differences Which Now 

Stand in the Way of Agreement 

483


WASHINGTON, July 17.—The efforts of the United States and Great Britain to agree upon a 

general arbitration treaty for the settlement of all controversies, through the establishment of a 

permanent tribunal, as well as the progress of diplomatic negotiations toward solving the 

Venezuelan problem, are set forth in thirteen communications made public by the State Department 

to-night. While they constitute the first authoritative disclosures upon these great questions since 

President Cleveland’s famous Christmastide message to Congress, it will be found that previous 

reports of the negotiations between the two Governments have accurately outlined the course of 

events. 

Little substantial progress toward a general arbitration treaty is disclosed by the documents. An 

outline in part of the proposed procedure is given, and the views of the two Governments are so 

explicitly stated that future discussion may be confined toward narrowing the few divergencies of 

method. The further fact is made apparent that the United States has not relaxed its vigilance in 

demanding a just settlement of the Venezuelan boundary question and has rejected the British 

proposals for arbitrating that dispute under terms involving the surrender of any part of Venezuela’s 

claims. 

The correspondence opens with a letter from Ambassador Bayard to Lord Salisbury, dated Feb. 

27 last, stating that his instructions continued to indicate an urgent desire to have the Guiana 

boundary question removed as soon as practicable from the atmosphere of possible controversy, 

and proposing an entrance forthwith upon negotiations at Washington between the British 

Ambassador and the Secretary of State. Mr. Bayard added that Secretary Olney greatly desired that 

there should be propounded a cleat definition of the “settlements” by individuals in the disputed 

territory which, it was understood, Great Britain wished excluded from the proposed arbitration. 

Lord Salisbury, in his reply, on March 3, said his Government readily concurred in the 

suggestion, and had sent instructions to Sir Julian Pauncefote, directing him to discuss the question 

either with the Venezuelan representative or the United States, acting as the friend of Venezuela. He 

had asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for the precise meaning attached to the word, 

“settlements”. 

Lord Salisbury’s Plans 

Lord Salisbury’s instructions to Sir Julian Pauncefote, dated March 5, form the third document, 

and are devoted to the system for general international arbitration, negotiations for the 

establishment of which had been interrupted by Secretary Gresham’s death. Lord Salisbury submits 

the following heads of a treaty for arbitration in certain cases: 

1. Her Britannic Majesty and the President of the United States shall each appoint two or more permanent 

judicial officers for the purpose of this treaty, and on the appearance of any difference between the two powers, 

which, in the judgment of either of them, cannot be settled by negotiation, each of them shall designate one of the 

said officers as arbitrators, and the two arbitrators shall hear and determine any matter referred to them in 

accordance with this treaty. 

2. Before entering on such arbitration, the arbitrators shall select an umpire, by whom any question upon which 

they disagree, whether interlocutory or final, shall be decided. The decision of such umpire upon any interlocutory 

question shall be binding upon the arbitrators. The determination of the arbitrators, or, if they disagree, the decision 

of the umpire, shall be the award upon the matters referred. 

3. Complaints made by the nationals of one power against the officers of the other; and pecuniary claims or 

groups of claims, amounting to not more than £100,000, made on either power by the nationals of the other, 

whether based on an alleged right by treaty or agreement or otherwise; all claims for damages or indemnity under 

484


the said amount; all questions affecting diplomatic or consular privileges; all alleged rights of fishery, access, 

navigation, or commercial privilege, and all questions referred by special agreement between the two parties, shall be 

referred to arbitration in accordance with this treaty, and the award thereon shall be final. 

4. Any difference in respect to a question or fact or of international law, involving the territory, territorial rights, 

sovereignty, or jurisdiction of either power, or any pecuniary claim or group of claims of any kind, involving a sum 

larger than £100,000, shall be referred to arbitration under this treaty. But, if in any such case, within three months 

after the award has been reported, either power protests that such award is erroneous in respect to some issue of 

fact, or some issue a international law, the award shall be reviewed by a court composed of three of the Judges of 

the Supreme Court of Great Britain and three of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States; and if the 

said court shall determine, after hearing the case, by a majority of not less than five to one, that the said Issue has 

been rightly determined, the award shall stand and be final, but in default of such determination, it shall not be valid. 

If no protest is entered by either power against the award within the time limited, it shall be final. 

5. Any difference, which, in the judgment of either power, materially affects its honor or the integrity or its 

territory shall not be referred to arbitration under this treaty, except by special agreement. 

6. Any difference whatever, by agreement between the two powers, may be referred for decision by arbitration, 

as herein provided, with the stipulation that, unless accepted by both powers, the decision shall not be valid. 

The time and place of their meeting and all arrangements for the hearing and all questions of procedure shall be 

decided by the arbitrators or by the umpire if need be. 

In the instructions, Sir Julian is told that all matters in dispute cannot be referred to arbitration; 

that neither Government is willing to accept arbitration upon issues involving national honor or 

integrity, but within this wide region the United States desires to go further than Great Britain. A 

system of arbitration being a novel arrangement, the limits must be determined by experiment, and it 

would be wiser to make a modest beginning than to hazard the success of the principle by 

adventuring upon doubtful grounds. Where the issues concern the State so that defeat is a serious 

blow to the credit or power of the litigant, Lord Salisbury says that nations cannot afford to leave 

controversies by which their national position may be affected or a number of their fellow-subjects 

transferred to a foreign rule to the deciding vote of one man, and that man a foreigner. 

Secretary Olney Amends 

Secretary Olney, in reply, April 11, declares that Lord Salisbury’s proposals are welcomed with 

the keenest appreciation of their value and of the enlightened and progressive spirit which animates 

them. So far as they manifest a desire that the two great English-speaking peoples of the world shall 

remain in perpetual peace, he fully reciprocates that desire on behalf of the Government and people 

of the United States. 

To himself personally, nothing could bring greater satisfaction than to be instrumental in the 

accomplishment of an end so beneficent. But, by the direction of the President, he proposes the 

following substitute for Lord Salisbury’s Articles IV and V: 

IV. Arbitration under this treaty shall also be obligatory. In respect of all questions now pending or hereafter 

arising, involving territorial rights, boundaries, sovereignty, or jurisdiction, or any pecuniary claim or group or claims 

aggregating a sum larger than £100,000, and in respect of all controversies not in this treaty specially described, 

provided, however, that either the Congress of the United States, on the one band, or the Parliament of Great 

Britain, on the other, at any time before the arbitral tribunal shall have convened for the consideration of any 

particular subject matter, may by act or resolution declaring such particular subject matter to involve the National 

honor or integrity, withdraw the same from the operation of this treaty; and, providing further, that if a controversy 

shall arise when either the Congress of the United States or the Parliament of Great Britain shall not be in session, 

and such controversy shall be deemed by Her Britannic Majesty’s Government, or by that of the United States, 

485


acting through the President, to be of such nature that the National honor or integrity may be involved, such 

difference or controversy shall not be submitted to arbitration under this treaty until the Congress and the 

Parliament shall have had opportunity to take action thereon. 

In the case of controversies provided for by this article the award shall be final, if concurred in by all the 

arbitrators. If assented to by a majority only, the award shall be final unless one of the parties, within three months 

from its promulgation, shall protest in writing to the other that the award is erroneous in respect of some issue of 

fact or of law. In every such case, the award shall be reviewed by a court composed of three of the Judges of the 

Supreme Court of Great Britain and three of Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, who, before 

entering upon their duties, shall agree upon three learned and impartial jurists, to be added to said court in case they 

shall be equally divided upon the award to be made. To said court there shall be submitted a record in full of all the 

proceedings of the original arbitral tribunal, which record, as part thereof, shall include the evidence adduced to 

such tribunal. Thereupon said court shall proceed to consider said award upon said record, and may either affirm 

the same or make such other award as the principles of law applicable to the facts appearing by aid record shall 

warrant and require, and the award so affirmed or so rendered by said court, whether unanimously or by a majority 

vote, shall be final. If, however, the court shall be equally divided upon the subject of the award to be made, the 

three jurists agreed upon as hereinbefore provided shall be added to the said court, and the award of the court so 

constituted, whether rendered unanimously or by a majority vote, shall he final. . . 

These amendments, he argued, make all disputes prima facie arbitral, and places where it 

belongs, in Congress and Parliament, the right and power to decide whether they are arbitrable or 

demand assertion by force of arms. The administration in authority, he says, when a serious 

international controversy arises, is often exposed to influences not wholly favorable to its impartial 

consideration. It is liable to view the honor of the country as not distinguishable from the good of 

the party. And if war and not arbitration is to be evoked, the direct representative of the people, at 

whose cost and suffering war must be carried on, should be properly charged with the responsibility 

of making it. 

By the scheme, as amended, the controversy is finally ended, whereas, under the original 

proposition, there would be an award only in rare cases, in which the six appellate arbiters favored it, 

either unanimously or by a majority of five to one. Mr. Olney thinks such an arrangement would be 

dangerous. In all cases in which the arbitrators were equally divided or stood four to two, public 

feeling in each country would be aroused by the protracted proceedings and the chances of a 

peaceful outcome would be prejudiced, rather than promoted. It is also pointed out that the United 

States, having no European alliances, has more to fear than Great Britain from the bias of foreign 

judges. 

Approximate Results Sought 

Secretary Olney finally contends that to insist upon an arbitration scheme so constructed that 

miscarriages of justice can never occur, is to insist upon the unattainable, and is equivalent to a 

relinquishment altogether of the effort in behalf of a general system of national arbitration. An 

approximation to truth – results which, on the average and in the long run, conform to right and 

justice—is all that the “lot of humanity” permits us to expect from any plan. In conclusion, 

Secretary Olney says: 

It only remains to observe that is Article 4, as amended, should prove acceptable, no reason is perceived why 

the pending Venezuelan boundary dispute should not be brought within the treaty by express words of inclusion. If 

however, no treaty for general arbitration can be now expected, it cannot be improper to add that the Venezuelan 

boundary dispute seems to offer a good opportunity for one of these tentative experiments at arbitration which, as 

486


Lord Salisbury justly intimates, would be of decided advantage, as tending to indicate the lines upon which a scheme 

for general arbitration can be judiciously drawn. 

Secretary Olney, on May 8 forwarded through Ambassador Bayard a request from the 

Venezuelan Commission sitting in Washington for references as to the claim set forth in the British 

Blue Book of English sovereignty over coast between the Pomeroon and Point Barima, for which the 

commission said it had been unable to find any warrant, and on May 30 Lord Salisbury sent Mr. 

Bayard a memorandum on the subject prepared by the Attorney General and took the opportunity 

to promise cordial assistance to the commission in the search for facts. 

Lord Salisbury, writing May 16 to Sir Julian Pauncefote, in rejoinder to Secretary Olney’s counter 

proposals, disclaims any intention to exclude the Venezuelan dispute, but holds that the system of 

arbitration ought to be applicable to all civilized countries. He says he is encouraged by Secretary 

Olney’s approval of Article 3 and the policy it is designed to sanction, and regrets that the two 

Governments should neglect the opportunity for embodying this common view in a separate 

convention. 

Lord Salisbury says he fears that the first result of compulsory arbitration of territorial claims will 

be an enormous multiplication of their number, and he questions whether the benefits of preventing 

war from such disputes may not be outweighed by a system generating a multiplicity of international 

litigation, blighting the prosperity of the border countries exposed to it and leaving the inhabitants 

under the enduring threat either of a forcible change of allegiance or of exile. He declares that there 

are essential differences between individual and national rights to land which make it impossible to 

apply the well-known laws of real property to a territorial dispute. In conclusion, Lord Salisbury 

says: 

It appears to me that under these circumstances it will be wiser, until our experience of international arbitration is 

greater, for nations to retain in their own hands some control over the ultimate result of any claim that may be 

advanced against their territorial rights. 

The Venezuelan Question 

Sir Julian Pauncefote, on June 1, had a conference with Secretary Olney regarding the 

Venezuelan controversy, and two days later sent the Secretary the instructions from Lord Salisbury 

upon which his visit had been based. In these, under date of May 22, the British Premier foresees 

the possibility of failure in the attempt to agree on the general arbitration system, and proposes a 

settlement of the Venezuelan dispute, in which he declares that from the first it had been 

objectionable to subject to the decision at an arbiter, who, in the last resort, must of necessity be a 

foreigner, the rights of British colonists who have settled in the country believing it to be British. 

A commission con3isting of four members, two to be British subjects and two citizens of the 

United States, is proposed to report upon the facts which affect the rights of Spain and Holland at 

the date at Great Britain’s acquisition of British Guiana. Upon the report of such commission, it Is 

stipulated that Great Britain and Venezuela shall endeavor to agree on a boundary, but, failing in 

this, a tribunal shall be appointed, on British, one Venezuelan, and they to select a third, who should 

fix the line of boundary: but with a proviso that it should not include as Venezuelan territory any 

territory which was occupied by British colonists on or before Jan. 1, 1887, or as territory of Great 

Britain any occupied by Venezuelans at the same time. 

487


Mr. Olney, on June 12, declared that his Government was unable to treat this proposal as well 

adapted to bring the dispute to a speedy conclusion, or as giving due recognition to the just rights of 

the parties concerned. Secretary Olney adds: 

But as Great Britain asks for the rule and Venezuela opposes it, the inevitable deduction coincides with the 

undisputed fact, namely, that the former’s interest is believed to be promoted by the rule, while the latter’s will be 

prejudiced. 

Venezuela is not to be stripped of her rightful possessions because the British Government has 

erroneously encouraged its subjects to believe that such possessions were British. In but one 

possible contingency could any claim of that sort by Great Britain have even a semblance of 

plausibility. If Great Britain’s assertion of jurisdiction on the faith of which her subjects made 

settlements in territory subsequently ascertained to be Venezuelan could be shown to have been in 

any way assented to or acquiesced in by Venezuela, the latter power might be held to be concluded 

and to be estopped from setting up any title to such settlements. But the notorious facts of the case 

are all the other way. Venezuela’s claims and her protests against alleged British usurpation have 

been constant and emphatic and have been enforced by all the means practicable for a weak power 

to employ in its dealings with a strong one, even to the rupture of diplomatic relations. It would 

seem to be quite impossible, therefore, that Great Britain should justify her asserted jurisdiction over 

Venezuelan territory upon which British subjects have settled in reliance upon such assertion by 

pleading that the assertion was bona fide, without full notice of whatever rights Venezuela may 

prove to have. 

An Amended Proposal 

Secretary Olney declares that, in the opinion of the United States, Lord Salisbury’s proposals can 

be made to meet the requirements and justice of the case only if amended along the following lines: 

The commission upon facts should be so constituted by adding one or more members that it must reach a 

result that cannot become abortive and possibly mischievous. 

That commission should have power to report upon all the facts necessary to the decision of the boundary 

controversy, including the facts pertaining to the occupation of the disputed territory by British subjects. 

The proviso by which the boundary line, as drawn by the arbitral tribunal of three, is not to include territory 

bona fide occupied by British subjects or Venezuelan citizens on the first of January, 1887, should be stricken out 

altogether, or there might be substituted for it the following: 

“Provided, however, that in fixing such line, if territory of one party be found in the occupation of the subjects 

or citizens of the other party, such weight and effect be given to such occupation as reason, justice, the rules of 

international law, and the equities of the particular case may appear to require.” 

Secretary Olney on the same day, June 12, acknowledged the copy of Lord Salisbury’s dispatch 

of May 18, and promised speedy consideration, but declared that in the meantime he desired again 

to call attention to the fact that so far as the Venezuelan dispute was concerned the position of the 

United States had been plainly defined not only by the Executive, but by the unanimous concurring 

action or both branches of Congress, and that a genuine arbitration finally disposing of the 

controversy would be cordially welcomed. 

On the other hand, he declared that, “while a treaty of general arbitration providing for a 

tentative decision merely upon territorial claims might be accepted by this Government as a step in 

488


the right direction, it would not feel at liberty to include the Venezuelan boundary dispute within the 

scope of such a treaty.” “It is deemed advisable.” he adds, “to be thus explicit in the interest of both 

Governments, that the pending negotiations for a genera treaty of arbitration may proceed without 

any misapprehension.” 

The Last Word 

The correspondence ends with a letter dated June 22 from Secretary Olney to Sir Julian 

Pauncefote, in which he replies to Lord Salisbury’s of May 18. He says that while this Government is 

unable to concur in all the reasoning or conclusions of Lord Salisbury, it is both impressed and 

gratified at the earnest and serious attention which the important subject under discussion is 

evidently receiving, and expresses the hope that persistent effort in the line of the pending 

negotiations will have results which, if not all that the enthusiastic advocates of international 

arbitration anticipate, will be a decided advance upon anything heretofore achieved in that direction. 

He finds that Lord Salisbury’s dispatch discards all general phraseology and makes a clear 

distinction between non-arbitrable or territorial controversies and all others. The advantages of this 

sharp division line, he thinks, are very great, and the fact that it has been drawn shows that the 

progress of the discussion is eliminating all but the vital points of difference. 

Secretary Olney then proceeds to show that if Lord Salisbury’s plan of rejecting an award could 

be permitted there would be no real arbitration at all. He insists that the acceptance should come in 

advance. 

The American plan is to reserve the right not to go into an arbitration if the territorial claim in 

dispute involves National honor and integrity. The British proposals also reserve this right. The vital 

difference, he says, is that under the British plan “the parties enter into an arbitration and determine 

afterward, when they know the result, whether they will be bound or not. Under the proposals of 

the United States, the parties enter into an arbitration, having determined beforehand that they will 

be bound. The latter is a genuine arbitration, the former is a mere imitation, which may have its uses 

but, like all other imitations, cannot compare in value with the real article.” 

Secretary Olney, referring to Lord Salisbury’s desire to exclude territorial claims, says that a treaty 

to settle them is the only thing now contemplated by Great Britain and the United States. He cannot 

imagine where all the speculative claims feared by Lord Salisbury are coming from, and he does not 

hesitate to say that the apprehensions thus expressed, if not wholly groundless, “are of a highly 

fanciful character.” 

The document then goes into a technical legal discussion of international law, as applicable to 

territory, and closes with the following keen point: 

By the original proposals of Lord Salisbury, contained in the dispatch of March 5 last, a protested award is to be 

void unless sustained by the appellate tribunal of six judges by a vote of 5 to 1. He has since suggested that such 

protested award may be allowed to stand unless a tribunal of five Supreme Court Judges of the protesting country 

shall set it aside for some error of fact or some error in law. Without committing myself on the point, it occurs to 

me as worthy of consideration whether the original proposals might not be so varied that the protested awards 

should stand unless set aside by the appellate tribunal by the specified majority. Such a change would go far in the 

direction of removing that want of finality to the proceedings which, as has been urged in previous dispatches, is the 

great objection to the original proposals. 

The Secretary has received no reply as yet to the last communication. 

489


[18 July 1896] 

- 337 - 

COMMENT IN ENGLAND 

Views of London Newspapers on the Arbitration Questions 

LONDON, July 17.—The Morning Post, commenting upon the correspondence between Great 

Britain and the United States touching the Venezuelan boundary dispute, will say to-morrow that in 

the perusal of the correspondence the impression arises that Mr. Olney, the American Secretary of 

State, is not so much anxious for a settlement of the questions as he is for a chance of putting Lord 

Salisbury in the wrong. 

The Graphic, treating of the same subject will say: “The attitude of the United States is 

uncompromising. Mr. Olney wants his own way or be will accept nothing.” 

The Daily News will remark upon Lord Salisbury’s unusual concession to democratic spirit by 

inviting the opinion of the country before deciding the question. It urges the people to carefully 

consider a matter of such enormous importance. It says that the questions at issue are eminently 

capable of adjustment and compromise. Lord Salisbury’s dispatches, it says, are very interesting and 

suggestive, but are unduly fearful lest Mr. Olney’s perhaps sometimes too “slapdash” language 

should be absolute. Lord Salisbury should have the courage to risk something for an experiment so 

eminently desirable. Mr. Olney should recognize that even a few steps are better than no advance. 

Regarding Venezuela, The Daily News advocates Mr. Carnegie’s suggestion, that there should be 

no transfer of the settled districts, but that the possessor of the disputed territory should pay 

compensation if the arbitrators should decide that their possession was not de jure. 

The Standard discusses the matter temperately. It admits it would be no small advantage to be able 

to deal with the American statesmen rather than with the shifty politicians presiding over the policy 

of Venezuela. It considers Lord Salisbury’s policy of inserting adequate safeguards against a 

miscarriage of justice more practical than Mr. Olney’s view that Great Britain might trust the United 

States not to raise frivolous claims, but Great Britain, it says, could not tolerate the condition of 

things that would arise if some southern republic, in backing which the Washington Government 

should become involved, should raise a fantastic demand for a slice of British territory. 

[18 July 1896] 

- 338 - 

SUBMITTED TO THE LORDS 

The Arbitration Matter Discussed at Length by Salisbury 

LONDON, July 17.—In the House of Lords to-day, Lord Salisbury laid upon the table the 

papers relating to the boundary dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela. Lord Salisbury, in 

presenting the documents, said that negotiations between Great Britain and the United States in 

regard to the Venezuela matter were still in progress. The Government, he added, did not believe 

490


that the claim made by Venezuela was a suitable subject for arbitration, but when the facts of the 

case as regarded the past history of Venezuela were fully ascertained, he thought that the diplomatic 

question involved could be easily adjusted. 

Lord Salisbury stated that concurrently with the negotiations which were in progress with the 

United States in regard to the dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela, negotiations were also 

going on between the British and American Governments, contemplating the establishment of a 

scheme of general arbitration of questions which might arise between the two nations. 

This, however, he said, was a matter which required great care and circumspection. Lord 

Salisbury said that he had taken an unusual course in the early production of the papers in the 

Venezuela case, for the reason that the recess of the United States Congress had begun, and the 

recess of the British Parliament would soon be commenced. It, therefore, had been thought that it 

might be convenient for the House to know what was going on. The negotiations between the 

United States and Great Britain were still incomplete, he said, but they were advancing amicably. 

In pursuing the negotiations, the Government had taken two courses. In the first and the smaller 

question with Venezuela upon which negotiations had been carried on with the United States rather 

than with Venezuela, no conclusion as yet had been arrived at. Difficulties had arisen from the fact 

that the claim made by Venezuela placed a very large proportion—about two-thirds—of British 

Guiana, including considerable territory which had been settled a great number of years, under 

arbitration. The Government never had thought that the question of the ownership of the territory 

ought to be arbitrated. In respect to unsettled territory, the Government always had been willing to 

arbitrate, but it was necessary to distinguish between the two. The Government’s view had been that 

at this stage arbitration was not a suitable remedy. The first thing was to ascertain the real facts 

respecting the past. It was impossible to proceed any faster than they had done, because they had 

not yet obtained the full facts necessary to the adjustment of the case. The labor involved had been 

enormous. 

Lord Salisbury announced that the Government would shortly place upon the table of the 

House another Blue Book in regard to Venezuela, which would enable the House to see the extent 

of the labors of the Government in the matter. When the facts were ascertained, he said, it probably 

would be easy to settle the matter. If not, it still would be perfectly easy to settle the particular issues 

at stake. 

Concurrent with these negotiations, Lord Salisbury continued, the Government had reopened 

the negotiations which were commenced during the time of the Ministry of Lord Rosebery upon the 

question of general arbitration, which were terminated, partly in consequence of the lamented death 

of one of the negotiators, and partly owing to the difficulty, which yet had not been surmounted, of 

dealing with cases so large and affecting interests so vital that statesmen thought twice before 

deciding. 

There had been much discussion with the United States upon these points. He thought the 

tendency of the Government of the United States was to desire a rapid and summary decision. 

In the view of the Government, as the principle of obligatory arbitration was to be applied for 

the first time, it would be attended with considerable hazard and doubt. In his opinion 

circumspection and careful procedure were desirable. 

Some machinery for appeal also ought to be provided for a protest in one form or another, in 

order to prevent the miscarriage of justice to the great possible detriment of the large population of 

the British colonies, through any error on the part of an arbitrator. One difficulty, however, was 

pressing upon them. 

491


He did not know how far the obligatory arbitration system would give rise to speculative claims. 

The answer of the United States was that such claims were not likely to arise between the United 

States and Great Britain. There was no doubt, he said, that to a certain extent this was true, but it 

must not be forgotten that in recent years the United States had shown a disposition to adopt the 

cause of the many republics of South America. He did not quarrel about that, however, as that was 

what Great Britain had done in regard to the frontiers of Sweden, Poland, Belgium, and Portugal. 

Great Britain would not deny that the United States had the same right. That rendered it possible for 

the claims of such powers to become matters for arbitration. Therefore, the Government had to 

exercise a very considerable degree of caution. The Government, he said, had been reproached for 

delay, but he thought that in a matter of such extreme importance an error might affect the national 

interests for a long time. Above all, the interests of the colonies required careful consideration at 

every step. He would rather, he said, incur the charge of unnecessary delay than that of wild 

precipitation, which would involve the country in difficulty. 

[18 July 1896] 

- 339 - 

ARBITRATION AND VENEZUELA 

It is impossible, we think, for any intelligent and impartial person to read the abstract that has 

been given out in London of the correspondence upon international arbitration without sympathy 

and admiration. The contrast in tone between the letters from the State Department and from the 

Foreign Office is in some points striking, but on each side there is equally evident, it seems to us, a 

complete good faith and an honest determination to avoid war in regard not merely to pending but 

to possible controversies, if war can be avoided without the risk of evils that may be worse than war. 

That there are such evils is a truth which no “national”—to adopt the French term which Lord 

Salisbury employs to avoid the awkwardness of “subject” or “citizen”—which no “national” of a 

great and proud State will be inclined to dispute. 

We have already pointed out the candor and friendliness of Lord Salisbury’s speech in the House 

of Lords accompanying the submission of the correspondence. It is a pleasure to note that the 

English press in general equally recognizes the exhibition of these qualities in the American side of 

the correspondence. One London journal does indeed say that Mr. Olney seems to be less anxious 

to settle the questions than to put Lord Salisbury in the wrong. But this seems to us an entire, 

though a natural, misapprehension. Lord Salisbury is a veteran diplomatist. The Secretary of State is 

an experienced lawyer and a novice in diplomatic correspondence. The difference is a difference of 

intellectual habit which must find expression in the manner of conducting such a correspondence. 

The business of a negotiator is to convince his correspondent that he himself is in the right. The 

business of an advocate is to convince some third party that he is in the right and his adversary in 

the wrong, and this habit of a lifetime must betray itself in negotiations in which the manner of the 

advocate is not in place. But we fail to find, as we think any discriminating reader must fail to find, 

any more mental reservation or any more lack of a complete good faith in the letters of Mr. Olney 

than in those of Lord Salisbury, and we are glad to find that this view is the one commonly taken by 

the English press. 

492


Meanwhile, upon the main question it is impossible not to recognize some force in each of the 

opposed contentions. Mr. Olney, on the one hand, contends that if arbitration is to amount to 

anything of value as a safeguard against war, provision must be made rot carrying it to a final result, 

which both parties have beforehand agreed to accept. On the other hand, Lord Salisbury contends 

that there are subjects that are not properly arbitrable and in respect of which the agreement of a 

great nation to submit to arbitration would be tantamount to an abdication of its national claims and 

conceivably an act of national suicide. No patriotic American will be likely to gainsay him on this 

point. It is often evident that each correspondent is thinking of the Venezuelan boundary, even 

when no overt reference to it is made. The hope for a peaceful and friendly solution of that question 

is that the report of our commission shall be so impartial and so thorough that it shall by moral 

weight impose itself as authoritative upon the British public, and so upon the British Government. 

Meanwhile, we can see no reason why one of Lord Salisbury’s proposals with which Mr. Olney 

does not appear to have dealt should not be acted upon. In the scheme of a. treaty suggested by 

Lord Salisbury one article gives a list of the classes of questions which he esteems to be clearly 

arbitrable. These include: 

“Complaints made by the nationals of one power against the officers of the other: all pecuniary claims or 

groups of claims amounting to not more than ₤100,000, made on either power by the nationals of the other, 

whether based on an alleged tight by treaty or agreement or otherwise; all claims for damages or indemnity under 

the valid amount; all questions affecting diplomatic or consular privileges; all alleged rights of fishery, access, 

navigation, or commercial privilege, and all questions referred by special agreement between the two parties, shall be 

referred to arbitration, in accordance with this treaty, and the award thereon shall be final.” 

Lord Salisbury proposes that this article shall be made a separate convention. It seems to us that 

he weakens the case by proposing a limitation in amount of the pecuniary claims. Some questions he 

withholds as matter of principle, but there it no principle in consenting to arbitrate a claim for 

£105,000 upon the same conditions as a claim of £95,000. But, with this exception, there can be no 

objection to the separate enactment of this article. It will be seen that it embraces many classes of 

questions and among them many of those which are most apt to produce international irritation. 

Best of all, the conclusion of such a treaty would constitute a permanent tribunal of arbitration. The 

principle would he embodied in the laws of the two countries, and the scope and jurisdiction of the 

tribunal could subsequently be enlarged. It would be an indisputable guarantee of good faith on each 

side. Such a guarantee, indeed, is already provided in the tone of the correspondence now made 

public. While we must recognize the difficulties or the case, the spirit in which it has been 

approached gives encouragement to the belief that these difficulties will be overcome. 

[19 July 1896] 

- 340 - 

VENEZUELAN SURPRISE EXPECTED 

Mr. Storrow, It Is Said, Will Handle the British Without Mercy 

WASHINGTON, July 19.—Something of a sensation in the Venezuelan dispute is expected in a 

day or two, possibly to-morrow, when a retort to the Pollock argument, which prefaced the British 

493


blue book, is delivered to the commission and made public simultaneously in this country and 

England. Up to this time the agents of the Caracas Government have contented themselves with 

putting up evidence before the Venezuelan Commission, and pointing out the numerous 

inconsistencies and false deductions in the British case, but since the distinguished Boston lawyer, 

James J. Storrow, has become associated with Mr. Scruggs in Venezuela’s behalf the case has been 

whipped into legal shape, and a brief has been prepared which is understood to handle Lord 

Salisbury, Prof. Pollock, and the other British lawyers and diplomats without gloves. 

It is said that Mr. Storrow has utterly demolished the vital points of the British contention and 

turned Prof. Pollock’s favorite arguments against Lord Salisbury’s pretensions. 

In Mr. Storrow’s few months’ connection with the case its entire conduct has been changed 

from one of defense to that of most vigorous aggressiveness. It is said that Mr. Storrow was secured 

as associate counsel at the suggestion of Secretary Olney, whose classmate he was at Harvard Law 

School. In addition to being the chief legal adviser of the Bell Telephone Company and other great 

corporations, Mr. Storrow has always been a deep student in international law and foreign affairs. 

His library includes one of the few complete sets in this country of the Royal Geographical Society 

publications. He was a participant on the winning side of the controversy between Dana and 

Lawrence twenty years ago over the charge of plagiarism in editing Wheaton’s “International Law.” 

[20 July 1896] 

- 341 - 

THE VENEZUELAN BRIEF 

Strong Paper Submitted to the Commission by Mr. Storrow 

ANSWER TO THE BRITISH CLAIMS 

Based, It is Said, on a True Divisional Line According to the Undisputed Evidence 

REFUTATION OF POLLOCK’S ARGUMENT 

Exposure of the Inconsistencies of the English Contentions with Respect to 

the Famous Schomburgk Map 

WASHINGTON, July 20.—Venezuela’s brief, prepared by Counsel Storrow and presented today 

to the Venezuelan Commission and the British counsel, is said to be the most important paper 

that has appeared in the case. It is alleged that in this brief, for the first time, a true divisional line in 

accordance with the evidence, is laid down, and that Lord Salisbury’s contention as to settlements is 

shown to be a mere diplomatic quibble, utterly unsupported by law or fact, and unworthy of any 

consideration by the commission, Mr. Storrow takes the ground that there never has been any 

British sovereignty in the disputed territory; that the Dutch never gained the slightest foothold in the 

Orinoco Basin, and, therefore, never transferred what did not exist to Great Britain, and caps his 

arguments by setting up proofs that the Schomburgk line, as held by Lord Salisbury, was a forgery 

perpetrated by the English Government twenty years after Schomburgk’s death. 

The brief opens with Lord Salisbury’s statement of Jan. 10, 1880, that the boundary claimed by 

Venezuela to the Esequibo River would involve the surrender of a province inhabited by 40,000 

British subjects, which had been in the uninterrupted possession of Holland and Great Britain 

successively for two centuries, and sweeps this away with the reiteration of Venezuela’s offer, in 

494


asking for arbitration in 1890, to recognize Great Britain’s rights to its settlements on both banks of 

the Esequibo, to reserve for itself the banks of the Orinoco, which the treaty of Aranjuez had 

recognized as Spanish, and which every English Ministry except Lord Salisbury’s had offered to 

recognize and to arbitrate the rest, which consisted entirely of territory where, even then, England 

had no settlements. 

Salisbury’s Claim of 1880 

The brief assumes, for the sake of argument, that England may have a right by occupation to 

settlements on the alluvial land at the mouth of the Esequibo, but maintains that the Spaniards held 

possession of all Guiana from the discovery in 1500 until Venezuela succeeded to the territory, and 

that Spain successfully resisted all efforts of the Dutch as well as of Sir Walter Raleigh “and other 

freebooters” to effect a lodgment. 

Mr. Storrow says the British claim confessedly has no basis except occupation, and the rules of 

law applied even to the facts alleged not only give no support to the British attempt to extend the 

boundary, but are specifically and affirmatively fatal to it. He attacks the so-called temporary posts in 

the Cuyuni Basin and at Barima Point by showing that they were mere trading stations, quickly 

destroyed by the Spanish, who maintained sovereignty over the region, and proves that the actual 

settlements of the Dutch and Spanish were always separated by 150 miles of forest. 

Quotes the Law 

Mr. Storrow quotes the law authorities as follows, to support the two rules of law which 

designate where between these actual settlements the boundary line shall run: 

First – When, either by nature or by the habits of the settlers, a tract has been defined, the rule is that the first 

occupation or a part is in law an entry upon and possession or the whole. But the entry of a second claimant cannot 

displace the legal possession of the first beyond the actual occupation or that second. 

Second – Where, between the settlements of two nations in a country otherwise wild, there are features which 

form a natural barrier or line of demarkation, and which in a long series of years have not been overpassed nor 

attempted to be overpassed by the actual settlements of either party, the law makes that line the international 

boundary. 

The brief claims that such a tract and line exist and that the Dutch and English settlements never 

attempted to pass it until the invasion of the armed English force at the time of the gold discovery, 

about a dozen years ago. 

The historical evidence of the Dutch and Spanish conflicts are discussed to show that the 

Spanish always were in actual occupation of the country up to the small range of mountains which 

the Cuyuni breaks through to enter the Essequibo. These cataracts effectually prevented access to 

the interior in the time of the Dutch as they do to-day in the case of English, compelling the latter to 

seek ingress from the mouth of the Orinoco, for which Harrison was building the road from Barima 

last month, when he was arrested in Venezuelan territory. 

The Spaniards, it is alleged, always exercised dominion over this great unsettled tract, by 

excluding other nations from it, and when the Dutch sought to take slaves from this section, with 

the help of the Carribs, as the Dutch archives prove, the Spanish drove them out, destroyed their 

stations on the Upper Essequibo, and imprisoned the Dutchmen. 

495


The Oregon Boundary Case 

The Oregon boundary case which made much international law, is applied to the existing 

dispute, and the British arguments in that celebrated case are turned squarely against Lord Salisbury’s 

present contention by showing that while private occupation in time may give a private title, no 

occupation can create sovereign dominion unless it be directly authorized or adopted by the 

Government of the settler at the outset and for the announced purpose of acquiring sovereignty. 

Evidence is then adduced which tends to turn Prof. Pollock’s arguments of law against his case. 

It is shown that Spain discovered the Essequibo and the Dutch fort on that river was built on the 

foundations of the older Spanish one; that the real road to the Interior Cuyuni-Mazeruni Basin is by 

way of the Spanish settlements on the Orinoco, and that it was those settlements which barred the 

way of Raleigh and all other seekers after El Dorado. It is urged that when the English, as they have 

done, concede that the Spaniards controlled the entire Orinocos, they lost their last argument upon 

which they could claim Barima. 

What Lord Stowell Said 

Mr. Storrow quotes Lord Stowell, the highest English authority in the case of the Mississippi 

River to show that those who own the watershed thereby possess the delta, islands, and shores 

below, these are unfit for habitation and never have been inhabited. The claim of either the Dutch 

or of the English to hold the mouth of the great Spanish river is alleged to be utterly untenable and 

Mr. Storrow says every English and Dutch historian who pretends to serious consideration of the 

matter re-echoed without knowing it the judgement of Lord Stowell, which, oddly enough, escaped 

the notice of Prof. Pollock and Lord Salisbury. 

After citing the Treaty of Aranjuez to show by both the literal translation and the British 

rendering that the Dutch made no claim to the controlling shore of the Orinoco, Mr. Storrow takes 

up the Schomburgk line and traces its history. Incidentally, he finds that the British Blue Book leaves 

out part of a sentence out of Schomburgk’s memoirs therein quoted which shows that Schomburgk 

had no idea that his line would amount to anything until its termini at least should be agreed upon 

by the disputants. 

Venezuela, it is said, never agreed to any of it. After Barima had been suggested as one end of 

the line and Venezuela protested, the assurance was given by Lord Palmerston that it was only to be 

considered “as a statement of the British claim,” and subsequently the same thing was said by Lord 

Granville in 1881. Lord Aberdeen in 1884, and Lord Rosebery, in 1886, offered to agree to lines 

which they declared “would secure to Venezuela the undisturbed possession of the mouths of the 

Orinoco.” 

This, it is argued, was because Great Britain, under those Ministers, and in fact, under all except 

Salisbury, felt that neither in law nor in good conscience could a claim to Barima be insisted upon. 

Mr. Storrow says: “Lord Salisbury is the only Minister who insisted upon a different view, and his 

claim grew time he recurred to the subject.” 

A Change of Base 

The line marked by Schomburgk on the maps published by himself and by the Government, Mr. 

Storrow says, had been declared at the outset to be the definition of the British claim as merely a 

496


basis for discussion; but now Great Britain said it owned territory within that line, and that would be 

submitted to arbitration was territory formerly claimed far outside of it. 

But even the Schomburgk line had been altered and expanded. In every map and every 

description of it down to 1886, which was twenty years after Schomburgk’s death, it was shown and 

described approximately as a north and south line, cutting across the Cuyuni and across its southern 

basin. This includes the maps of 1840, 1841, and 1847, published in the reports of his explorations; 

five separate maps published directly by the Government or by the Government authority—1840, 

1867, 1875, 1876 and 1885—and ten in the official “colonial list,” 1877-86— one of which maps, 

namely, that of 1875, in the Government publication of the Geological Survey, was stated in the text 

to be from a tracing of Schomburgk’s final map in the possession of the Government. 

The great map of the colony, about 5 by 4 feet in size, prepared by the Government surveyors 

1875, and based on a tracing of Schomburgk’s map bearing Schomburgk’s name, and still officially 

known as “Schomburgk’s map”, and published by Stanford in 1876, (dated 1875,) by procurement 

of the Colonial Government, showed the north and south line and a note on its face said: “The 

boundaries indicated in this map are those laid down by the late Robert Schomburgk.” 

An Alleged Discovery 

But in 1886, twenty years after Schomburgk’s death, the Colonial Office “discovered” that all 

these maps were wrong; that Schomburgk’s line went around by the great bend of the Cuyuni. It 

thereupon compelled Stanford to conceal his existing maps, and to change his plate by erasing the 

boundary which went across the headwaters of the Barima and across the Cuyuni, and by inserting 

another, which went around the great bend, and the maps so changed in 1886 still bore the date 

1875, and no other date. 

The new line first invented or asserted in 1886 thus appeared as if it were the original line of 

1875, supported by the authority of the surveyors, whose names still appeared on the map, as 

before. This was perilously near the alteration of ancient landmarks and spoliation of records. It 

evidently deceived Lord Salisbury, who, Feb. 13, 1890, asserted it to be “the line surveyed by Sir R. 

Schomburgk in 1841.” He did not survey this line in 1841 or in any other year. 

In the course of his discussion of the Schomburgk line Mr. Storrow says: 

The Schomburgk line was originally nothing but a speculative attempt or proposal to form the subject of discussion 

and negotiation. It has not in itself the slightest probative or presumptive value. It was stated merely as a definition 

of the British claims, and the attempt, after it had stood forty years, to alter both its location and its character, gives 

rise to reflections which it is not necessary to dwell upon. Nor would the recent attempt stand any better if some 

unpublished papers in the Colonial Office should lend a color of justification to it. The value of the line as a 

limitation of the British claim does not lie in the opinion of Schomburgk, but in the fact of its authoritative 

publication. It must also be pointed out that in 1850 the two nations agreed that there should be no occupation of 

the disputed territory by either, and that in 1884, and subsequently, Great Britain invaded it with an armed force and 

took possession up to the expanded “Schomburgk line.” On Feb. 20, 1887, Venezuela severed diplomatic relations 

with Great Britain. 

A North and South Line 

Mr. Storrow says that the investigations demonstrate that Schomburgk died under the 

impression that he had drawn a north and south line, and the publications of his brother, who 

497


traveled with him, contain the same line. It also is claimed that this line never was altered until the 

discoveries of gold outside the original line gave a new speculative value to the region. 

The line of all these authentic maps, it is alleged, strikes the Cuyuni, not at the Acarabisi River, 

where the Harrison surveying party was arrested last month, but at the Otomong River, which is 

twenty miles east of it, or below the Acarabisi. Schomburgk planted stakes on the Acarabisi and at 

several other places, but the streams by which he placed them turned out to be, as he states in his 

report, much further to the west than he had supposed. They were, therefore, it is argued, far to the 

west of the line which in his memoir he had attempted to justify. It is for that reason undoubtedly 

that he made the line on the final map to run from Arakita, on the Amakura, to Otomong, very 

nearly north and south, straight across the country. 

His larger map of 1844, from which Brown made tracings, expressed his final conclusion, and 

after he had approved these publications during the twenty years of his life and the Government had 

approved them for over forty years, it is not permissible, in Mr. Storrow’s opinion, to alter it after 

his death, upon a supposed inference from remarks made in any of his unpublished reports—if 

there be any such remarks. 

Mr. Storrow again takes up the “settled” districts and says: 

We have pointed out that Venezuela, for the sake of settlement, was ready to exempt the settled districts in an 

arbitration. The region which it did then require to be arbitrated, and in which the recent gold diggings are found, 

contains no settlements even to-day. They are worked exclusively by negroes, who are hired on the coast and go up 

for three months at a time. There are no houses there, for they live in huts built in the Indian fashion or mere 

shanties, and no families and no permanent residents, unless that term be applied to a few negroes who have 

kitchen gardens, and perhaps a few foremen or officials whose duties keep them there. Nor have the English spent 

any money for permanent improvements in these regions. With scarcely an exception, the gold is got by simple 

washing, by hand labor. The highest estimate of the total capital put in is $2,000,000, and that is chiefly to pay wages 

and current expenses until the product can be marketed. The output of gold, by official returns, has been 

$10,500,000. The Government gets a royalty of 90 cents an ounce, say rising $500,000; its royalty last year was 

$119,000. 

“From the best information to be got from its Blue Books and reports,” says Mr. Storrow, in 

conclusion, “England’s total expense for clearing streams, roads, and everything else would be less 

than that. So, if every British subject or resident were required to-day to quit those regions with only 

what he would naturally carry with him. the colony would be $8,000,000 the richer for its invasion of 

the territory we claim, and no one would leave his ‘home’.” 

[21 July 1896] 

- 342 - 

BRITONS INVADE CUYUNI 

ARMED COLONISTS ENTER THE DISPUTED TERRITORY 

They Go to Complete Surveys Begun by Mr. Harrison on the Borderland Claimed 

by Venezuela—The Force of Police, with the Surveyors, Carry 100 Rounds 

of Ball Cartridges Per Man, Though Instructed Not to Fight 

498


WASHINGTON, July 22.—Mail advices from Demerara indicate that the British have not by 

any means abandoned the survey of the road through the disputed territory on the border with 


Though the official surveyor, Mr. Harrison is returning to Georgetown, a special force of 20 

armed men, under the command of Police Inspector Shaw, left Georgetown June 24, under 

instructions to protect the surveyors in the Cuyuni Basin. 

Mr. Im Thurn has also been hurried to the Acarabesi to deliver a protest against Venezuelan 

interference. It is stated that force, however, is not to be used, and in the event of a large body of 

hostile Venezuelans presenting themselves, the officer in charge has explicit instructions to retire 

without offering any resistance. 

It is stated that at the time of Mr. Harrison’s arrest only nine miles of the survey remained to be 

completed, and it is extremely probable that the remaining distance has been covered since that 

time. Mr. Harrison had not yet arrived at Georgetown, although he was known to be on the way. 

The Georgetown newspapers say that the policemen were fully equipped with haversacks, 

hammocks, etc., and a hundred rounds of ball cartridges each. 

[23 July 1896] 

- 343 - 

ENGLAND’S VENEZUELAN BLUE BOOK 

The Dutch, It Is Claimed, Controlled the Disputed Region 200 Years 

LONDON, July 22.—The promised Blue Book on Venezuela was issued this evening. It 

comprises 356 pages, their contents consisting of documents from the Dutch and Spanish archives 

from 1521 to 1796. 

An official summary is prefixed, which claims that the documents prove that for more than two 

centuries prior to 1796 the Dutch controlled the territories which are now in dispute, and that their 

control was recognized by the Spaniards. 

The Standard will to-morrow say that if a day is not afforded the Opposition in the House of 

Commons to discuss general and Venezuelan arbitration, the second reading of the Appropriation 

bill will enable the discussion to be raised. It is the general opinion of the Opposition that Lord 

Salisbury is too timid and hesitating in responding to the advance of Secretary of State Olney. . . 

[23 July 1896] 

- 344 - 

SEARCH RECORDS CENTURIES OLD 

Guiana Officials Seek Proof of Dutch Rule on the Orinoco 

WASHINGTON, July 23.—The last issue of The Demerara Chronicle, that of July 8, which has just 

reached the Bureau of American Republics, says: 

499


“For several weeks past the important inquiry, the nature of which was partially referred to in an 

article with regard to the relations that existed between our Dutch predecessors in the colony and 

the aboriginal Indians, has been progressing in the Government buildings. The archives at the rear 

of Guiana public buildings are packed with a mass of documents that has been accumulating for 

centuries. Many of them are in the original Dutch and French, and these are systematically 

overhauled and translated for the purpose of discovering whether or not they contain matter that 

may prove of value in strengthening the position the British Government has maintained in regard 

to the boundary line existing between this colony and the adjacent republic. 

“The contents of many of these documents are, of course, relatively of little value, but we learn 

from conversation current among authorities evidently well informed that so far as the search has 

proceeded it has been successful in unearthing several important points of evidence that appear to 

establish beyond all doubt that the Dutch colonists west of the Essequibo occupied territory and 

exercised jurisdiction to the mouth of the Orinoco. The nature of the evidence in this direction that 

has already been brought to light and the value thereof may be judged from the fact that in one of 

the documents is the record of an order by the Dutch Court of Policy to erect a fort and station 

Dutch soldiers at their boundary on the Oronoque. It appears that a military officer obtained 

audience from the Court of Policy to ask for provision being made for troops which were expected 

to arrive daily. There was no accommodation for them in Stabroek, and he had orders to keep them 

on board the ship until proper provision was made for their reception. 

“The Court of Policy decided that forts should be erected at Caurabana, Mahaica, and, as stated, 

on the Dutch boundary at the ‘Oronoque’. Other documents discovered show that the estimate of 

the cost and plan of the fort at Courabana were actually prepared, and it may reasonably be 

supposed that further search will furnish similar evidence with regard to the fort at Orinoco. 

“An old record of the law courts has also been found, we understand, showing that the French 

during their occupation of this colony exercised jurisdiction over the country extending to the 

mouth of the Orinoco. The document in question relates to a case in which an Indian who had 

murdered a white man in the Amacura district was brought to justice by the French. 

“While the search has revealed other evidence of the occupation of and jurisdiction over the land 

in dispute by the Dutch, it has also directed attention to important documents relating to the 

boundary which are probably to be found in the archives of Holland. The progress of the inquiry 

may therefore be confidently expected to bring to light further documentary proof of the extent of 

the Dutch possessions, as we have reason to believe the greater part of the records is still 

untouched.” 

[24 July 1896] 

- 345 - 

VENEZUELAN MATTER IN COMMONS 

The Foreign Office Not Ready to Give Additional Information 

LONDON, July 27.—The Venezuelan question was again brought up in the House of 

Commons to-day by an interrogatory by John Morley, formerly Chief Secretary for Ireland, who 

asked for information regarding the papers on the subject recently laid upon the table of the House. 

500


In replying to the question, George Curzon, Parliamentary Secretary of the Foreign Office, said 

that the statement in defense of Venezuela’s claim recently submitted to the American High 

Commission had not reached the Foreign Office. When it was received it would be laid upon the 

table. 

Mr. Morley then asked further questions germane to the subject, in reply to which Joseph 

Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the Colonies, said that he was unable to give the information 

asked for. He added that the population within the territory in dispute could only be determined, 

first by negotiation, and afterward by local inquiry. 

[28 July 1896] 

- 346 - 

THE ARREST OF HARRISON 

It Was Only Made After a Warning from the Venezuelans 

Special Correspondence of The New-York Times 

DEMERARA, British Guiana, July 13.—Mr. Harrison, the Government surveyor who was 

arrested by the Venezuelans at Acarabisci Creek, on the boundary of the territory now occupied by 

the British on the one hand and by the Venezuelans on the other, has returned to headquarters here 

and has reported in detail the circumstances connected with his arrest and detention by the officers 

of the neighboring republic. 

The official report is the effect that on the 6th of June an armed force of Venezuelans crossed 

the Acarabisci to where Mr. Harrison and his party were engaged on the construction of a road that 

is intended to connect the Barima and Barama gold-bearing districts with the Cuyuni, and insisted 

upon the work being stopped forthwith, on the grounds that the territory was in dispute and 

therefore should not be disturbed. Mr. Harrison pointed out that he was only carrying out his 

orders, and could not suspend the operations without instructions from his Government. The 

Venezuelan commander then informed him that unless the work was stopped he would have to 

resort to force to compel suspension. The Venezuelans then retired to the opposite side of the 

creek, and for some days kept a close watch on the movements of the British Guiana staff. 

The Venezuelans again crossed the creek on Sunday, June 14, and the commander, Sub- 

Commissario Gomez de Garcio, intimated to Mr. Harris that as no notice had been taken of his 

protest he had no other alternative than to take him (Harrison) under arrest, so as to emphasize the 

protest of Venezuela against the British assuming the right to exercise authority and jurisdiction over 

the territory in dispute. 

Mr. Harrison pointed out how undesirable it was that such a step should be taken on a Sunday, 

and after some further conversation Gen. Garcia withdrew his men and again retired to the opposite 

bank of the creek. But before 9 o’clock the following morning Gen. Garcio, accompanied by some 

twenty fully armed men, returned to the British camp and Mr. Harrison was immediately placed 

under arrest. 

The officer second in charge of the British expedition was a German named Klautky, and the 

Venezuelans were at first inclined to arrest him along with his chief, but on Mr. Harrison’s pointing 

501


out that Klautky was a German subject and that complications might arise if he was arrested, they 

decided not to interfere with him. 

After his arrest, Mr. Harrison was placed on board a small corial and conveyed to El Dorado, the 

Venezuelan outpost, opposite the British station at Uruan. It took nine days to make the trip up the 

river, and in consequence of the exposure Mr. Harrison became seriously ill. On the following day 

his condition was so precarious that information had to be sent to the Inspector (Henderson) at the 

British station, and the dispenser from there at once crossed to where Mr. Harrison was. Later on he 

returned to Uruan and reported to Inspector Henderson the precarious condition of Harrison, and 

Inspector Henderson crossed and lodged a protest with Gen. Macpherson, the officer in command 

of the Venezuelan post, against the detention of Harrison, pointing out that Harrison’s life was 

being seriously endangered by being detained in a place that lacked every convenience and comfort 

for an invalid. 

Gen. Macpherson at first declined to do anything in the matter, but later it was agreed that Mr. 

Harrison be conveyed across the river to the British station on the bond of Inspector Henderson 

that he would be given up when required by the Venezuelan authorities. Gen. Macpherson July 1 

sent word to Uruan that he had been instructed by telegraph from Caracas to release Mr. Harrison, 

and the latter, having considerably improved, shortly after set out for Georgetown, which was 

reached July 10. 

[30 July 1896] 

502


- Part 11 - 

August – December 1896 

503


504


- 347 - 

VENEZUELAN COMMISSION WORK 

Bulk of Evidence in—Now to Tell What it Establishes 

WASHINGTON, Aug. 8.—The work of the Venezuelan Boundary Commission has entered 

upon a new stage during the last month. Heretofore the efforts of the Commissioners have been 

directed mainly to securing the evidence upon which the final report is to be based. The work from 

now on will very largely consist in examining and classifying the information already collected. The 

British Government., it is presumed has put into its two voluminous Blue Books all the Information 

upon which it relies to support its claim. The Venezuelan Government has done the same thing in 

its three volumes of transcripts from the Spanish archives and other documents. 

Independent of this, the commission has been searching on its own account. The Congressional 

library in Washington and many public and private libraries in various parts of the country have 

been ransacked for historical anti cartographical information. The archives at The Hague have been 

gone through with a. thoroughness that not even the seal of Great Britain or Venezuela has 

heretofore attempted, and, as a result, important documents, which the world thought lost or 

destroyed, have been unearthed. This work, although not yet terminated, is nearing completion. 

Sir Clement R. Markham, President of the Royal Geographical Society, has been in 

correspondence for some months with the Secretary of the commission, and has furnished valuable 

information on the subject of the Schomburgk line, accompanying it by copies of maps on file in the 

Colonial Office, some of which have never been published. It may be said, briefly, that while 

information is looked for from Rome, from The Hague, and possibly from other places, the bulk of 

the evidence is in, and the question now is to determine what it is which that evidence establishes. 

In order to solve this problem, a number of preliminary reports are being prepared. Among 

these way be mentioned special reports upon the geographical and physical characteristics of the 

region in dispute; reports upon the evidence presented by the 300 or more, maps which have been 

published since the discovery of America; reports upon the facts of occupancy and settlement, as 

given by historians, and separate reports upon the same facts as developed by the documents from 

the Dutch and Spanish archives; critiques upon the arguments of the British and Venezuelan 

Governments as they appear in the British Blue Books, and in the Venezuelan brief. These reports 

are being prepared for the most part by the Commissioners at their respected homes. 

President Brewer spent several days this week at the office of the commission here. He was 

joined Thursday by Mr. Mallet-Prevost, the Secretary, and the two spent the day in consultation. 

President Brewer has now gone to his home in Vermont, while the Secretary, it is understood will 

remain for some time in Washington. 

[9 August 1896] 

- 348 - 

ARBITRATION IS POSSIBLE 

THE VENEZUELAN QUESTION IN A FAIR WAY TO SETTLEMENT 

505


Great Britain Shows a Disposition to Accept the Proposal Made by the United States, and 

the Commons Accords with the Idea—The Basis of Agreement Submitted by Secretary 

Olney for the State Department—The Correspondence 

LONDON, Aug. 14.—In the House or Commons to-day Sir William Harcourt, the leader of the 

Opposition, asked in regard to the Venezuelan situation if the proposal contained in the dispatch 

sent to the Foreign Office by the United States Government June 12 last had removed the 

difficulties, and further inquired whether there were any prospects for a speedy submission of the 

question to arbitration. 

A. J. Ba1iour, First Lord at the Treasury, said that the Government was still considering the 

proposal made by the United States Government, which was regarded by tat Foreign Office as 

opening the way for an equitable settlement of the difficulty. The Government, he added, had every 

expectation that the pending negotiations would lead to an early and satisfactory result. 

Sir William Harcourt said that the House would regard Mr. Balfour’s statement as satisfactory, 

and asked to have the papers on the subject prepared to be presented to the House. 

Mr. Balfour replied that the Government would present the papers to the House as soon as 

might be consistent with public interest. 

[15 August 1896] 

- 349 - 

Another Blue Book on Venezuela 

LONDON, Aug. 24.—The Government will issue another—the third—blue book on the 

Venezuelan question on Friday next. The book will deal especially with the Schomburgk line. 

[25 August 1896] 

- 350 - 


A Belief that the Negotiations Are in a Promising Stage 

LONDON, Sept 30.—The Chronicle says: 

“There is some reason to believe that the Venezuelan negotiations have reached a promising 

stage both with reference to the boundary dispute and an arbitration treaty with America.” 

The wording of the foregoing does not suggest that the statement is inspired. Everybody 

believes that the boundary dispute will be settled amicably, but such steps will not be taken pending 

the report of the American Venezuelan Commission. Only the permanent officials of the Foreign 

and Colonial Offices are on duty in those departments at the present time, and they will act in 

merely routine matters until the return of the Ministers. Lord Salisbury is too busy with Turkey now 

to attend to Venezuela even if Secretary Olney should press the Venezuelan matter. No such action 

506


on the part of Mr. Olney is expected at present, however, as it would be a slight to President 

Cleveland’s commission. 


- 351 - 

The British Guiana Gold Miners 

COLON, Columbia, Oct. 1.—Advices received here from British Guiana are to the effect that 

the yield of gold in that country is steadily increasing, and mining property is rising in value. Shares 

in the Barima Mine of the par value of $5 are now selling at $15, and a further advance in value is 

expected. The greater portion of the gold-producing territory is within the domain claimed by 



- 352 - 

VENEZUELAN SETTLEMENT IN SIGHT 

With It Out of the Way, England Is Ready to Face the East 

LONDON, Oct 2.—The Speaker says: “Sir Julian Pauncefote, British Ambassador to the United 

States will shortly return to Washington, but it is reported, upon credible authority, that he will not 

leave England before a satisfactory solution or the Venezuelan troubles has been reached. Those 

behind the scenes are the most sanguine of such an ending of the controversies; indeed, the 

questions at issue are said to be already virtually solved. When all is well in the West, we may face 

the East with greater confidence.” 


- 353 - 

THE ARBITRATION QUESTION 

No Communications Between Great Britain and This Country for a Month 

LONDON, Oct. 6.—Information has been furnished to The United Associated Presses that no 

communications have passed between Great Britain and the United States upon the subject of 

arbitration in over a month. Important developments in connection with Venezuela, however, will 

probably occur within the month of October. 

507


A settlement of the Venezuelan dispute is by no means imminent, and it is not true, as has been 

alleged, that Great Britain is making concessions to Venezuela. Much depends upon Mr. 

Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the Colonies, who sailed from New-York for England on Sept. 

30, though his desires in the matter are subject to the approval of Lord Salisbury. The latter, the 

Foreign Office officials say, is hopeful that the arbitration question will be soon solved, but he is at 

present very much occupied with the Eastern question. 


- 354 - 

ENGLAND’S WORD VIOLATED 

A RAILROAD AUTHORIZED ON DISPUTED GUIANA TERRITORY 

The Colonial Legislature Grants a Concession to Build Along a Line Which Lord Salisbury 

Has Conceded to be of Doubtful Title—The Bill Rushed Through, in Spite of Earnest 

Protests—This Government May Remonstrate 

WASHINGTON, Oct. 6.—According to belated advices from British Guiana which have just 

reached Washington, the promise to maintain the status quo pending negotiations has again been 

violated by Great Britain in a manner that may possibly lead to remonstrance from this 

Government. Briefly, the Colonial Legislature has authorized the construction of a railway through 

territory which Lord Salisbury has conceded to be of doubtful title along the modified Schomburgk 

line and outside of the so-called settled districts to which England has denied the application of the 

arbitration principle. 

The Demerara Chronicle of Sept. 16, which came to the State Department to-day, contains a 

verbatim report, extending over five columns, of a session of the Colonial Legislature held Sept. 4, 

which granted a concession for a railway along the right bank of the Kaituma River to the rich 

Barima gold fields, which have never been claimed by the colony until a few years ago. It was 

necessary to suspend the rules to enact the legislation, as the requisite time for its consideration had 

not elapsed. The Kaituma River flows north into the Barima, fifty-five miles above the mouth of 

the latter, and it was pointed out that the railway would reduce the journey, which now consumes 

five or six days, to two or three hours. 

The bill was rushed through by its promoters, notwithstanding the protest of some conservative 

members that it was not clear to whom the concession was being granted or the exact location of 

the line. The only amendment that was secured provided that the Government could purchase the 

line after fifteen years. 

The local newspapers, which have heretofore, without exception, supported drastic measures 

against Venezuela, laughingly declare that it is not possible to charge the Legislature with dilatoriness 

in dealing with the proposition, and the Government organ, The Chronicle, says: “We admit that there 

was a certain amount of incongruity and perhaps something that was slightly irregular in the 

proceedings. But really, as the Government takes no risks and has its rights guarded at every point, 

the public has no reason to complain.” 


508


- 355 - 

THE VENEZUELA SITUATION 

A London Paper Says that England Has Been Insulted 

LONDON. Oct. 7.—The St. James’s Gazette devotes a leading article to discussion of the 

Venezuelan situation, in which the paper insists that no progress whatever has been made toward a 

settlement of England’s dispute with Venezuela. The paper recites the Venezuelan affronts and 

outraged perpetrated upon English officials, and concludes by saying: 

“If such insults and outrages had been addressed to the meanest sister republic in South 

America, there would have been war long ago. Any other European power would not have stood it a 

week, yet we sit with folded hands and permit one slap in the face to succeed another. We hope 

most sincerely that the negotiations with the United States will result peacefully, but nothing is to be 

gained by shutting our eyes and crying ‘Peace!’ where there is no peace.” 

The Gazette adds that Venezuela’s attitude in regarding the construction of a railway to the 

Barima as a violation of Venezuelan territory is an insult. 


- 356 - 

THE VENEZUELAN TROUBLES 

Minister Andrade Refuses to Discuss Them at All 

WASHINGTON, Oct. 8.—Minister Andrade of Venezuela distinctly refuses to discuss in any 

manner the action of the British Guianian Colonial Government in granting a concession along the 

Kaituma River to the Barima gold fields within the disputed territory, beyond expressing his surprise 

at the news. 

British Guiana being a Crown Colony, the acts of the Legislature become law when approved by 

the Governor, unless vetoed by the Crown, a prerogative seldom or never exercised. The laws of 

British Guiana require an interval of fifteen days to elapse between the introduction of a bill and its 

final passage. This particular concession was introduced fourteen days before the adjournment of 

the Legislature and was rushed through under a suspension of the rules. As nearly as can be 

gathered, the line of the proposed railroad runs in the same direction as that over which an attempt 

was made some time ago to construct a wagon-road, which attempt resulted in the arrest by the 

Venezuelan authorities of the British Colonial County Surveyor, Harrison, who, however, was 

subsequently released. The route lies miles outside the Aberdeen line as laid down in the maps 

accompanying the British Blue Book. 

By the convention of 1850 between Great Britain and Venezuela, both parties agreed not to 

occupy certain territory so long as it remained in dispute. This promise was repeated by the British 

Foreign Office to Minister Bayard. Venezuela has never advanced one inch, but in 1894 Minister 

Andrade officially complained to Secretary Gresham that advances were being made by Great 

Britain, in violation of the status quo, and Secretary Gresham addressed a protest to the British 

509


Government on behalf of Venezuela through Ambassador Bayard. Then followed the resolution 

adopted by Congress at the instance at Mr. Livingston of Georgia, requesting the President to use 

his good offices to have the whole matter referred to arbitration. 

The present encroachment in proposing to construct a railroad directly to the gold mines is 

regarded as more serious than any that have preceded it, particularly if it should turn out (as is 

deemed more than probable) that the finding of the States High Commission should be that the 

“true divisional line” brings all these mines within Venezuelan territory. 


- 357 - 

THE VENEZUELA COMMISSION 

A Meeting Yesterday, but Nothing Definite Accomplished 

WASHINGTON, Oct. 10.—The Venezuelan Boundary Commission held its first meeting today 

since the Summer adjournment. All of the members were present. The session, which occupied 

the entire day, was devoted to the consideration of the reports presented. No final decision, 

however, can be arrived at until after the receipt of the report now being prepared by Prof. Burr, 

whose return from Europe is expected by the end of this month. Among the documents laid before 

the commission were advance sheets of a book entitled “The Boundary Question Between British 

Guiana and Venezuela,” devoted to a defense of the British claim, by Joseph Strickland. 

There was also presented a revised copy of Mr. Storrow’s summary, hitherto published, of the 

proposed brief for the Venezuelan Government, to which had been added a caustic note on the 

Schomburgk line, and a second brief entitled “The Venezuelan Question,” prepared by William L. 

Scruggs of counsel for the South American republic. 

Two hundred and thirty-six pages in the shape of advance sheets of a third brief, prepared by a 

commission of the Venezuelan Government at Caracas were also laid before the commission. Much 

or the matter in these documents was already familiar to the commission 

The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, the 28th inst., at which time Prof. Burr is expected 

to be present, and from that time on continuous sessions of the commission will probably be held 

until a final decision is reached. 

[11 October 1896] 

- 358 - 

NO DECISION REACHED YET 

The Venezuela Commission Has More Evidence to Examine 

WASHINGTON Oct. 14.—Respecting the report that the Venezuelan Boundary Commission 

had practically decided the matters submitted to it in favor of Venezuela, Mr. S. Mallet-Prevost, the 

Secretary of the commission said to-day: 

510


“The statement that the Venezuelan Boundary Commission has come to a decision sustaining 

the claims of Venezuela in the boundary dispute between that country and Great Britain is entirely 

without foundation. The commission is not yet in possession of all the facts necessary to form a 

definite judgment, and will not be until the return of Prof. Burr from Europe about the end of this 

month. He is to bring with him new and important historical information, which must be carefully 

examined before any decision can be arrived at. Any statements therefore to the effect that a 

decision has been reached are entirely premature.” 

Nevertheless, there is an extremely prevalent opinion that the Venezuelan side of the question 

has to a considerable extent been substantiated. 

[15 October 1896] 

- 359 - 

INSTRUCTIONS TO PAUNCEFOTE 

Reported that the Venezuela Trouble Is Near Settlement 

LONDON, Oct. 20.—With reference to assertion published in The Speaker Saturday that Sir 

Julian Pauncefote, the British Ambassador to the United States, on his return to his post would 

be the bearer of instructions that would secure a favorable solution or the Venezuelan frontier 

dispute, certain papers publish a news agency statement, which purports to be official, to the effect 

that it is a patent fact that Sir Julian has all along been charged with a mission directed to a 

settlement of the question. 

He has started for the United States with certain instructions, it is alleged, and the negotiations 

will be reopened immediately upon his arrival. It is too early, however, it is suggested, to say whether 

the British proposals are likely to be accepted. “Happily,” the statement runs on, “a better feeling is 

being manifested between the peoples, and it frequently happens that such manifestations helped to 

an amicable conclusion that would not otherwise be practicable.” 

[21 October 1896] 

- 360 - 

THE VENEZUELA DISPUTE 

ANDREW D. WHITE TELLS OF THE COMMISSION’S WORK 

Researches in Many Countries Contribute Much Valuable 

Information—Not Seeking a Cabinet Position 

Ex-President Andrew D. White of Cornell University, a member of Venezuelan Boundary 

Commission, was at the Fifth Avenue Hotel yesterday. Some have brought his name into politics as 

a suitable man to be the next Secretary of State. He is not seeking the appointment, and said, when a 

reporter of The New-York Times asked him if there was anything to be said on the subject: 

511


“No; I simply know what I read in the newspapers. I expect Mr. McKinley will make his own 

selections for his Cabinet, and will choose able men. 

“Is Bryanism likely to appear again in the politics of this country?” 

“I do not think it will appear in the form it took in the last campaign. I do not believe the 

Democratic Party will again be led astray by it. If business improves and general prosperity comes to 

the country during the next four years, the issues raised by Bryan and his followers will not appear. 

The rise in the price wheat, and the drop in the price of silver toward the close of the campaign, 

took away all argument from Bryan’s cause, and nothing was left for him and his followers, but the 

attempt to arouse class feelings.” 

‘Is the work of the Venezuelan Boundary Commission about completed?” 

“There is yet much to be done in the minor details, such as printing and issuing the material the 

commission has gathered, but the real work for which the commission was appointed is completed. 

In view of the recent turn of the affair, it is possible that the report of the commission may not be 

made. 

“The commission has served a useful purpose, because it has brought about the best way to 

arrive at the solution of the question. The commission has worked steadily and has brought together 

a large mass of important material, classified it, and gotten it into proper connection with the matter 

at issue. 

“Dr. Winsor of Harvard has examined nearly three hundred maps, and has made a careful 

report. Prof. Burr of Cornell has worked in various libraries in this country, at the archives in The 

Hague and in London, and has sent from time to time reports of great value, enabling the 

commission to settle some difficult points. Prof. Jameson of Brown University has studied on 

special subjects in the libraries in this country and abroad, and has submitted reports. Experts have 

been at work in the archives of the great mission orders in Rome, especially of the Jesuits and 

Franciscans, and have sent us from time to time maps and statements showing extensions of 

Spanish missions into the disputed territory. The certified copies of the most important documents 

bearing on the case in the Spanish archives have been laid before us. 

“The commission has prepared probably the best map ever made of the whole territory between 

the Orinoco and the Essequibo Rivers, and in addition special maps which will be published with 

the documents to the number of twenty or thirty. All of this matter will be transferred to the 

Arbitration Tribunal and cannot fall to be of the greatest use to that body in saving a vast deal of 

trouble and great expense. It will also allow that body to discharge its duty in much less time than it 

could otherwise have done. The work, therefore, of our commission has been preliminary and 

preparatory to the work of the Arbitration Tribunal. 

“The establishment of the Arbitration Tribunal has been most honorable to the present 

Administration, and it seems to me will act as a guarantee of continued peace between the United 

States and Great Britain. This second great arbitration so clearly points the peaceful solution of 

international difficulties that peace may be considered as permanently established between the two 

nations, no matter how difficult the questions which may arise hereafter.” 

Mr. White said the only question the commission had not touched upon was that of the fifty 

years’ occupancy of the settlers. That, he added, would have to be settled by expert testimony. 

[25 October 1896] 

512


- 361 - 

The Venezuelan Commission 

WASHINGTON, Oct. 26.—The Venezuelan Commission will meet again on Wednesday, when 

Prof. Burr, who is expected to arrive in New-York to-morrow, will present his preliminary report on 

his researches in the archives of The Hague, which is understood to elucidate several points of the 

boundary controversy. The final installment of the Venezuelan brief is also expected at this meeting. 

The commission has not yet commenced to formulate its decision. 

[27 October 1896] 

- 362 - 

BOUNDARY OF VENEZUELA 

THE BRITISH CASE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN COMPLETED 

The Commission Receives a Book Published by Authority of the Governor of British 

Guiana—The Control over the Disputed Territory by Essequibo—Contents of the 

British Blue Books—The Commission to See Prof. Burr 

WASHINGTON, Oct. 28.—The completion of the British case in the Venezuelan boundary 

dispute, according to the understanding of the Venezuelan Commission, was signalized at the 

meeting of that body to-day by the receipt from Secretary Olney of an important publication 

“printed by the authority or his Excellency the Governor of British Guiana” in the colony. The 

document, which is uniform in appearance with the earlier British Blue Book, is entitled “The 

Boundary Question. The Control over the Disputed Territory by Essequibo by Means of Her Posts, 

Indian Captains. and Protectors of Indians, Mainly from the records of British Guiana, by James 

Rodway.” it is divided into six sub-divisions as follows: 

1—Area of jurisdiction. 

2—Posts and postholders. 

3—Indian Captains. 

4—The Indian protectorate. 

5—The watershed of the Essequibo, and 

6—The Pomeroon district. 

This volume has been expected for some time, and surprise is expressed that it should be 

transmitted through the American Consul at Demerara rather than through Ambassador Bayard, as 

was the case with the other volumes. The first and second Blue Books were devoted to the Pollock 

argument, with documents and maps. The second [sic] or supplemental volume gave most of the 

documents in extenso and corrections to which attention had been called. The fourth was a surprise 

to all concerned, as it contained simply a reprint of Counsel Storrow’s preliminary argument against 

the Schomburgk line, and did not have the customary blue cover. No. 5 was a reply to Mr. Storrow, 

and it has been stated for some time that the sixth and final volume would be devoted to the Indian 

protectorate. 

513


At the commission meeting to-day all the members except Dr. Andrew D. White, who was 

absent, participated in discussions of the evidence. After a recess for luncheon the meeting 

continued throughout the afternoon. 

The commission adjourned this afternoon to meet again to-morrow for the purpose of 

conferring with Prof. Burr relating to his researches in Holland and England. 

[29 October 1896] 

- 363 - 

PROF. BURR’S RESEARCHES 

Examined a Lot of Old Documents at The Hague 

Prof. George L. Burr, chief historical expert of the American Venezuelan Commission, who has 

been abroad examining documents bearing on the Venezuelan boundary dispute, arrived yesterday 

on board the White Star line steamer Teutonic, from Liverpool. Prof. Burr made no stay in this city, 

but left on the 11.30 A. M. train for Washington. 

When seen at the dock and questioned as to the result of his mission to Europe, Prof. Burr said 

as far as he individually was concerned his labor of research had been entirely satisfactory. 

“My mission,” he said, “was to find out geographical conditions. I examined a great body of 

documents which before had not been searched. I found them in Dutch archives at The Hague, 

where I went direct from here. 

“My work was not in connection with diplomats, but I was accorded every possible courtesy, 

both in England and Holland. The documents I examined went back as far as the sixteenth century. 

Prof. Burr said he had formed no conclusions favorable to one side or the other. 

When asked whether the British Ambassador, Sir Julian Pauncefote, had brought a settlement of 

the question with him when he returned to this country, the professor said he did not know. 

The documents found in the Dutch archives naturally contained very good material. 

Asked whether he thought the question in dispute would be shortly settled, Prof. Burr replied: “I 

cannot say; I fervently hope it will. The evidence is so vague that it must be interpreted. I have right 

to anticipate the commission. 

Dr. De Hann of Johns Hopkins University accompanied Burr abroad, and assisted him in his 

research. 

[29 October 1896] 

- 364 - 


Sir Edward Clarke, Solicitor General under the Liberal Government, has aroused a good deal of 

bad feeling by his speech to his constituents at York on the 15th. Referring to the report which will 

be made by the Venezuelan Commission he said: “That report would be against this country 

514


(England) not because it was a hostile commission,” but because he believed “no honest and 

impartial commission could decide in favor of the claims of this country upon the evidence.” And 

he urged a prompt settlement of the matter. 

In the discussion that naturally followed it was alleged by Lord Salisbury’s supporters that Sir 

Edward Clarke, in portions of the speech containing this remarkable avowal, showed that he was 

not familiar with “the evidence.” We think that the allegation is not without foundation, for certain 

portions of the evidence which he declared that he had not seen discussed, and on which he placed 

considerable emphasis, undoubtedly had been discussed, both in the English papers and in this 

country. But what is significant about the speech is that a member of the present Parliament and a 

former Solicitor General should make such an extreme statement at all, and should base upon it a 

demand for an immediate settlement of the question involved. That shows a very different condition 

of mind from the one that prevailed only a few months since in England. 

In connection with this incident in England there is to be noted the remark of Prof. Burr, the 

geographic expert who has been making investigations in England and Holland, to aid the 

commission in its labors. When asked whether he thought the question would shortly be settled, he 

replied: “I cannot say; I fervently hope so. The evidence is so vague that it must be interpreted. I 

have no right to anticipate the commission.” 

This reveals in reality the character of the whole question. It is gravely to be doubted whether 

there is evidence on either side, whether geographic or historic, that is not “so vague that it must be 

interpreted.” It is not only possible but probable that the American Commission may find itself 

unable definitely to describe a boundary that in their judgment sharply divides the possessions of 

Venezuela from those of Great Britain. If that should prove to be the fact, the commission will, of 

course, declare it. 

What, then, will be the course to pursue? Clearly it would be unreasonable for either party to 

insist upon forcibly maintaining a claim that a commission so impartial and competent as that 

named by the President can neither wholly approve nor wholly reject. Both parties, on such a 

decision by the commission, ought to see the necessity of accepting a compromise, to be reached 

either by negotiation between themselves or by the friendly offices of the United States, or by some 

agency to which both should agree. If this should be the outcome it must be noted that it is in effect 

that sought by the action of our Government, which simply asked that a matter of such obvious 

doubt and difficulty should not be decided by one party alone—that it should be settled not 

arbitrarily, but by reasonable arbitration. 

[30 October 1896] 

- 365 - 


Members to Study the Evidence and Reassemble Nov. 10 

WASHINGTON, Oct. 29.—The Venezuelan Commission adjourned this afternoon to 

reassemble Tuesday, Nov. 10, the interim to be devoted to independent study by the individual 

members, and the preparation of his formal report on the Dutch archives by Prof. Burr, the chief 

historical expert. 

515


To-day’s session, which was devoted to a close examination of Prof. Burr’s discoveries, 

demonstrated that the commission’s experts had unearthed much important evidence at The Hague 

regarding the Dutch settlements in Guiana that had escaped the attention of both the disputing 

nations. 

Among other valuable finds was a map which had been altogether unknown to the Dutch 

authorities, who were astonished at the skill with which Profs. Burr and De Haan found connecting 

links in the fabric of evidence they were weaving. Secretary Mallet-Prevost says that while Prof. 

Burr’s return cannot be said to signalize the speedy conclusion of the commission’s labors, a distinct 

advance is made toward the decision. 

[30 October 1896] 

- 366 - 

LONDON HAS A WRONG VIEW 

Comment in British Guiana on the Kaituma Railway 

WASHINGTON, Nov. 2.—British Guiana newspapers, which reached the State Department 

to-day, disagree with the London press over the Kaituma Railway episode, and advocate compliance 

with the Venezuelan remonstrance about the violation of the status quo. 

Some weeks ago the Colonial Legislature passed under suspension of rules and without adequate 

consideration, a grant for a railway up the Kaituma River, into the disputed territory, with a 

provision that the survey should be made at once and the construction should commence in January. 

Venezuela vigorously protested to the United States against this breach of faith, Great Britain having 

promised to preserve existing conditions until the whole territorial dispute was settled. When this 

affair was published in dispatches of The United Associated Presses, London newspapers commented 

upon it with many disparaging remarks in regard to the United States and possible intervention. In 

now appears that the Demerara papers, which take their cues from the Colonial authorities, are 

discussing the matter in quite a different tone, admitting that the action of the Colonial Legislature at 

this junction was calculated to upset all plans for arbitration. 

In the copies reaching here to-day the possibility of international friction over a minor issue is 

deplored, and the London papers are advised not to lose their temper. Confidence is expressed that 

the forthcoming settlement of the boundary question will give the colony the projected railway line, 

and that no actual work will be attempted on it until that decision is rendered. From other sources it 

is learned that this changed attitude in the colony is due to a very forcible cablegram from Mr. 

Joseph Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the Colonies. 


- 367 - 

Great Britain and Venezuela 

516


LONDON. Nov. 7.—The Pall Mall Gazette announces that it is authorized to deny the truth of 

the report that Great Britain has granted railway concessions in the interior of Venezuela, the line of 

the proposed railway crossing territory reserved for delimitation. The projected railway, if built at all, 

The Gazette says, will not encroach upon the Schomburgk line. If Great Britain and the United States 

agree to settle the Venezuela matter by arbitration the line of the proposed railway will be referred to 

the arbitrators wherever it touches debatable land. 


- 368 - 

LORD SALISBURY’S ADDRESS 

England’s Foreign Policy as to Venezuela and Other Countries 

LONDON. Nov. 9.—When Lord Salisbury arose to reply to the toast. “Our Ministers,” he 

received an ovation. 

Lord Salisbury’s Speech 

After thanking the Lord Mayor and the others present for the warmth of the welcome extended 

to him he said: 

“I thank the Ambassador of the United States for his presence here and for joining a great 

historic meeting. By the few words he has uttered he has raised his own plane of observation so high 

above the mere level of party that, though contrary to practice to remark upon the internal politics 

of other States, I may be permitted, without impertinence, to congratulate him upon the splendid 

pronouncement the great people he represents have made in behalf of the principles which lie at the 

base of all human society. [Cheers.] It is rather bathos to have to turn therefrom to the rather 

unimportant controversy his country and ours have had in recent months. I only do so for the 

purpose of expressing the belief that it is at an end. [Cheers.] You are aware that in the discussion had 

with the United States on behalf of their friends in Venezuela our question has not been whether 

there should be arbitration, but whether arbitration should have unrestricted application, and we 

have always claimed that those who apart from historic right had the right which attaches to 

established settlements should be excluded from arbitration. Our difficulty for months has been to 

define the settled districts, and the solution has, I think, come from the Government of the United 

States that we should treat our Colonial empire as we treat individuals; that the same lapse of time 

which protects the latter in civic life from having their title questioned should similarly protect an 

English colony, but beyond that, when a lapse could not be claimed, there should be an examination 

of title and all the equity demanded in regard thereto should be granted. 

“I do not believe I am using unduly sanguine words when I declare my belief that this has 

brought the controversy to an end. [Loud cheers.] 

“It is a matter of no small satisfaction to the Government that at a time when anxious social 

questions which are far more important than political questions are troubling the United States, and 

therefore troubling the world, we should remove any semblance of political difference that might 

hinder common action in defense of the common heritages of society. 

517


We have had an anxious year at the Foreign Office, but we have floated into a period of 

comparative calm, and I do not intend to trouble you with matters that have passed away.” 


- 369 - 

THE VENEZUELA DISPUTE 

LORD SALISBURY SAYS IT IS AT AN END 

Official Statement to That Effect Made by England’s Prime Minister at the 

Lord Mayor’s Banquet—An Address by Ambassador Bayard 

LONDON, Nov. 9.—At the banquet given this evening to celebrate the installation into office 

of George Faudel Philips, the new Lord Mayor of London, Lord Salisbury made the statement that 

in his belief the controversy between England and the United States with reference to Venezuela 

was at an end. 

This utterance of Salisbury’s was the important feature of the banquet. It was made in the course 

of a speech, in which, as Premier, according to the custom of recent years. Lord Salisbury made a 

statement concerning the foreign and domestic policies of the Government. Ambassador Bayard 

made an address in response to the toast, “The Foreign Missions.” 

Mr. Bayard, in treating of the community of interests of the nations of the world, all being 

affected by the doings of others, referred to the Presidential election in the United Status, saying: 

“I am very sure that it was in no narrow party sense, no merely National sense, that the heart of 

the people which it is my highest honor to represent was echoed in a verdict that could not be 

misunderstood, standing as it does for National honor and the continuity of National obligations, 

making the world safer in the trust of each part, and speaking as emphatically as the human mind 

and human heart ever spoke in favor of that honesty which is an essential condition of civilization 

everywhere.” 

Lord Salisbury was the next speaker. After referring in the kindliest terms to Mr. Bayard and the 

result of the Presidential election in the United States, which he said embodied the “splendid 

pronouncement of a great people in behalf of the principles which lie at the base of all human 

society,” the Premier made his statement with reference to the Venezuelan trouble. 

“It is rather bathos,” he said, “to turn to the rather unimportant controversy his (Bayard’s) 

country and ours has had in recent years. I only do so for the purpose of expressing the belief that it 

is at an end.” 

This announcement and the balance of Lord Salisbury’s remarks with reference to the 

Venezuelan case provoked enthusiastic applause from all present. 

The banqueting hail of the Guildhall, where the Lord Mayor’s banquet was served, was crowded, 

many of those present being of world-wide celebrity, including Prime Minister Salisbury, the Right 

Hon. George J. Goschen, First Lord of the Admiralty; Lord George Hamilton, Secretary of State for 

India; Lord Halsbury. Lord High Chancellor: the Right Hon. Charles T. Ritchie, President or the 

Board of Trade; Gen. Lord Wolseley, Commander in Chief of the British Forces: Gen. Sir Herbert 

Kitchener, Sirdar of the Egyptian Army; the Right Hon. William Court Gully, Speaker of the House 

of Commons, and the Hon. Thomas P. Bayard, the American Ambassador. 

518



- 370 - 

COMMENTS OF THE LONDON PRESS 

Great Britain and the United States Both Won a Victory 

LONDON, Nov. 9.—The Daily News, commenting to-morrow upon Lord Salisbury’s speech at 

the Guildhall, will say in reference to his explanation of the Venezuelan matter that the terms of the 

settlement as stated by the Prime Minister are perfectly satisfactory, involving no surrender of 

essential principles. The solution arrived at will enable each side to claim a victory. Lord Salisbury 

can justly say he succeeded in protecting the rights of the British settlers, and Mr. Olney can claim 

with literal truth that he succeeded in bringing Great Britain to consent to arbitration. 

The Post will say that the settlement of the Venezuelan dispute is wholly satisfactory to Great 

Britain and the United States. 

The Daily Graphic holds that the solution of the vexatious question reflects the highest credit 

upon a concerned. It fully justifies the intervention of the United States. 

The Standard will briefly welcome “the auspicious announcement.” 

The Chronicle will say that it finds Salisbury’s statement rather puzzling. It doubts whether settled 

colonists exist in any great numbers, but supposes it is all right. 

The Daily Telegraph says the terms of the settlement leave the dignity and interests of Great Britain 

and the United States unimpaired. 


- 371 - 

A TRIUMPH FOR OLNEY 

General Treaty of Arbitration May Be Submitted to the Senate—Great Britain 

Has Yielded Many of Her Contentions 

WASHINGTON. Nov. 10.—Americans who have followed the Venezuela case, and who are 

impatient to hear from their own Government the latest developments of the effort to bring about 

arbitration of the boundary dispute, are doubtless wishing to-night that a banquet could be provided 

at which Secretary Olney might add to the welcome information last night volunteered by Lord 

Salisbury at the Lord Mayor’s dinner In London. That Secretary Olney has something to say there is 

no sort of doubt. That he will not say it is almost as certain as that the British Foreign Office has 

from the first of this dispute, been much more willing to surrender information than has been the 

Department of State of the United States. 

Lord Salisbury has said that the controversy is at an end. Secretary Olney does not talk about it 

as freely, and the assumption must be that he does not feel justified in being so emphatic and 

conclusive as was Lord Salisbury. That he is gratified is evident and he has reason to be. A glance at 

the correspondence, begun in February last, and just made complete by the release of two letters 

519


referred to in Lord Salisbury’s revelations last night, shows that Mr. Olney has argued the British 

Foreign Office around to his side of the proposition for arbitration so completely that he must come 

out of the State Department entitled to wear some plumes of satisfaction. He has about achieved the 

greatest of victories in the name of arbitration. 

An important contention insisted upon by Mr. Olney, to which Lord Salisbury has as yet offered 

no convincing answer, is that in any scheme of arbitration, either general or particular and special, 

between the United States and Great Britain, it must be agreed beforehand that the arbitration shall 

be final. Lord Salisbury argued that in certain cases there should be the right of appeal after 

arbitration which Secretary Olney cogently insisted would make arbitration farcical. 

While much remains to be cleared up in the correspondence to be published, it is plain that the 

treaty of arbitration of the Venezuelan boundary will be offered to the Senate with a proviso that the 

finding of the arbitrators must be final, and that, in defining the boundary, the line will be run so as 

to exclude all settlements not made within fifty or forty years. Secretary Olney suggested sixty years 

as the limit within which settlement of occupation should be regarded as valid for establishing a 

right to claim, and it is understood that Lord Salisbury proposed forty years as a substitute. The 

fifty-year limit of occupation, therefore, seems to have been the compromise accepted as reasonable 

and satisfactory as a basis of agreement. 

The prompt action of the Venezuela Boundary Commission in announcing that it will defer its 

report is at the suggestion of the Department of State. It would be indelicate and perhaps 

embarrassing for that body to go on preparing its report on the matter with the announcement from 

Salisbury that the dispute is settled. But there is assurance that the material collected by the 

commission will not be cast aside. 

It will be submitted to the President in due season, and by and by it is supposed that it will find 

its way into print after the Venezuelans shall have accepted the settlement that has been brought 

about by the exercise by the United States of its good offices to settle a vexatious and sometimes 

threatening question, which not many months ago appeared likely to embroil at least two nations in 

war. 

As yet Venezuela has not taken part in the effort to settle the boundary, except through the 

United States. With its settlement, or perhaps before, in order to facilitate business, it is probable 

that Venezuela and Great Britain will once more resume diplomatic relations. 

Secretary Olney’s effort to bring about a settlement of the Venezuela boundary dispute will be a 

great achievement if it shall result in a finding acceptable to Great Britain and Venezuela; but it shall 

bring about a convention between the United States and Great Britain for the arbitration of all 

disputes between those countries, as a Secretary Olney hopes it will, the winning of the pacific 

adjustment of the Venezuela-Guiana boundary will constitute but a small part of the claim that the 

Secretary will have won to the gratitude of two great nations. 


- 372 - 

THE CORRESPONDENCE 

Secretary Olney Insists on a Clear Statement of England’s Position 

520


WASHINGTON, Nov. 10.—Two letters which were exchanged between the United States and 

Great Britain regarding Venezuela since the presentation of Mr. Olney’s counter proposition of June 

12, were given to the press at the State Department this afternoon, and help materially to clear up 

the situation. In a dispatch of May 22, 1896, Lord Salisbury had proposed an evenly divided 

commission to report upon territory in dispute outside the so-called settled districts, and Secretary 

Olney had suggested the provision for a commission of unequal numbers. The next dispatch was 

from Lord Salisbury to Sir Julian Pauncefote, and was as follows: 

Foreign Office, July 3, 1896. 

Sir: 

I have to acknowledge your Excellency’s dispatch of 15th June, inclosing a note from Mr. Olney, 

in which he explains the reasons that induce the Government of the United States to withhold their 

assent from the proposals with respect to the Venezuelan frontier contained in my dispatch of the 

22d May. 

The arguments by which Mr. Olney supports this view will receive the careful consideration of 

Her Majesty’s Government. I am not now writing to you for the purpose of discussing them. My 

object in addressing your Excellency is to point out, that in a matter of some importance, Mr. 

Olney—owing doubtless to the inadequacy of my own explanation—has misapprehended the 

purport of the proposal which I had the honor to make to him—he states that ‘it appears to be a 

fundamental condition that the boundary line, decided to be the true one by the arbitrators, shall not 

operate upon territory bona fide occupied by a British subject—shall be deflected in every such case 

so as to make such territory part of British Guiana.’ 

This was not the intention of my proposals, and the language of my dispatch of 22d May does 

not, I think, fairly bear this construction. I proposed that ‘the tribunal should not have power to 

include such districts as the territory of Venezuela,’ but I did not propose that they should 

necessarily be assumed, without further proof, to be part of British Guiana. I only stipulated that the 

ownership of them was not to be decided by the tribunal, which, in our judgement, was inadequate 

for this purpose, though it was adequate for the assignment of the unsettled districts. The settled 

districts shown to be in dispute by the inquiries of the commission were to be disposed of by 

subsequent negotiation. 

The claim of Venezuela is so far-reaching that it brings into question interests and rights which 

cannot properly be disposed of by an unrestricted arbitration. It extends as far as the Essequibo: it 

covers two-thirds of the Colony of British Guiana; it impeaches titles which have been unquestioned 

for many generations. These districts must be treated separately, and until further inquiry has thrown 

more light upon the matter, it is only by reserving the settled districts generally that this can be done. 

The view of Her Majesty’s Government is that, where the matter in issue is of great importance 

and involves rights which belong to a considerable population, and are deeply cherished by them, 

special precautions against any miscarriage of justice are required, of which I have indicated the 

general character in this correspondence, but which are not required where a little unoccupied 

territory is alone in question. 

It is for this reason that Her Majesty’s Government proposed to except these districts from the 

jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, though it could deal adequately with the disputed claims to 

territory that is not occupied. But they did not intend by that stipulation to ask the Government of 

the United States to prejudge any questions which had been raised, or might be raised, with respect 

521


to the ownership of settled districts. This part of the subject, confessedly the most difficult part, 

would have been reserved for separate examination. 

I should wish you to offer this explanation to Mr. Olney when you have an opportunity, and if 

he desires it, give him a copy of this dispatch. I will reserve for another occasion the observations 

which, after consideration, I may have to make in reply to the general argument of his note. 

(Signed) SALISBURY 

Secretary Olney’s reply to this letter follows: 

Department of State. 

Washington, July 13, 1896 

Secretary Olney’s Reply 

Your Excellency: 

I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt from you of a copy of Lord Salisbury’s dispatch to 

you of the 3d inst. Its object is to explain that his Lordship, in his previous dispatch of May 22, did 

not intend that the boundary line fixed by the proposed arbitral tribunal should include in British 

Guiana any territory bona fide occupied by a British subject January 1, 1887. But as such territory 

must fall upon one side or the other of any complete boundary line, and was certainty not in any 

event to be assigned to Venezuela, all the present explanation would seem to show is that Lord 

Salisbury’s proposals of May 22 contemplated not a complete boundary line, but a part or parts of 

such line—namely, such part or parts as might divide uninhabited or unsettled territory. Such a 

conclusion requires a heroic construction of a paper which, in terms, “proposes the following basis 

of settlement of the Venezuelan boundary dispute,” by which the to Governments are to endeavor 

to agree “to a boundary line” upon the basis of a certain report, and by which, in absence of such an 

agreement, an arbitral tribunal is to “fix the boundary line upon the basis of such report.” 

Nothing in this language intimates that anything less than a complete boundary line, is to be the 

outcome of the plan suggested. 

The discussion, however, is hardly worth pursuing. If Lord Salisbury did not make us meaning 

clear in the dispatch of May 22, he certainly is entitled to make it clear now. There is another part of 

the dispatch which seems in me of more importance and upon which I wish to base an inquiry. 

“The claim of Venezuela,” it is claimed, “is so far-reaching that it brings into question interests 

and rights which cannot properly be disposed of by an unrestricted arbitration. It extends as far as 

the Essequibo; it covers two-thirds of the colony of British Guiana; it impeaches titles which have 

been unquestioned for many generations.” That Venezuela claims territory extending to the 

Essequibo or covering two-thirds of the colony of British Guiana cannot be regarded as being of 

itself an insuperable obstacle to unrestricted arbitration. But the objection that the Venezuelan claim 

“impeaches titles which have been unquestioned for many generations” is undoubtedly of the most 

weighty character. The inquiry I desire to put, therefore, is this. Can it be assumed that Her Majesty’s 

Government would submit to unrestricted arbitration the whole of the territory in dispute, provided 

it be a rule of the arbitration, embodied in the arbitral agreement, that territory which has been in 

the exclusive, notorious, and actual use and occupation of either party for even two generations, or, 

say, for sixty years, shall be held by the arbitrators to be the territory of such party? In other words, 

522


will Her Majesty’s Government assent to unrestricted arbitration of all the territory in controversy 

with the period for the acquisition of title by prescription fixed by agreement of the parties in 

advance at sixty years? 

I inclose copy of the dispatch for Lord Salisbury’s use. I should be glad to have its substance 

transmitted by cable, that it may he published with the other correspondence on the 18 inst. 

(Signed) 

RICHARD OLNEY 


- 373 - 

ENGLISH PRESS COMMENTS 

It Looks Like a Square Backdown by Great Britain 

LONDON, Nov. 11.—The St. James’s Gazette asks whether the agreement will not throw into 

arbitration all the region between the Schomburgk line and the settled territory of Guiana, which 

England has declared would never be submitted to arbitration, which course the United States has 

declared England would be forced to take. 

“If it does,” says The Gazette, “the American claim that the agreement is a square backdown on 

the part of Great Britain will be difficult to disprove.” 

The Globe, commenting upon the Venezuelan arbitration treaty, says it welcomes the agreement, 

because it releases the United States from a false and dangerous position. If the commission had 

reported adversely to Great Britain, the paper adds, President Cleveland would have been forced to 

attempt to coerce Great Britain or eat humble pie, with the result that if the Washington 

Government had seen fit to enter the unequal contest with England, the development of the United 

States would have been retarded for half a century.” 

The Globe also says: “It must be clearly understood that the constitution of the new arbitration 

tribunal is not to establish a precedent for arranging all further disputes between the United States 

and the United Kingdom in North and South America, nor are we ready to recognize Monroeism as 

international law.” 


- 374 - 

FREDERIC R. COUDERT RETURNS 

Thinks the Venezuelan Dispute Will Be Finally Settled Soon. 

Frederic H. Coudert, one of the members of the Venezuelan Boundary Commission, returned 

yesterday from Washington and expressed himself as highly delighted with the outcome of the 

controversy between this Government and Great Britain. 

523


“I cannot say anything about future details,” said Mr. Coudert. “It will take some time yet for 

them to be disposed of. The outcome is sure to be of great benefit in the way of an example. The 

commission had been in session only two days when the news of Lord Salisbury’s announcement 

reached us. We have on hand a large mass of evidence which has not yet been discussed. It is not 

likely now that we will have to take this up. Everything will be turned over to the board of 

arbitration to be selected. Our labors have now practically been suspended. No decision that could 

be given by an ex parte tribunal could give perfect satisfaction to both sides, and possibly not to 

either. 

“We shall not try to make any formal report upon the merits of the case until a decision is 

reached by the international tribunal, as we believe that the way had best be left perfectly clear for an 

amicable understanding. It may be that we will never make any formal report upon the question at 

the dispute. That all depends upon what action may be taken by the new factor in the United States. 

Of course, we shall make a report upon our labors, saying what we have been doing while in session. 

At present, however, no report of ours involving the question at issue will be allowed to interfere 

with the amicable settlement of the disagreeable question. 

“Lord Salisbury’s announcement, while it comes in the nature of a pleasant surprise, is 

nevertheless an acknowledgment that England has gracefully yielded to the demands of our 

Government and will become a party to an arbitration treaty that will no doubt be acceptable to 

both Governments. I have never had any doubt that England would accede to our terms, but I did 

not think that the difficult would be settled as soon as this. 

“Lord Salisbury has done the very best possible thing under the circumstances, and I think that 

in two weeks’ time Sir Julian Pauncefote and Secretary of State Olney will sign the protocol of the 

proposed treaty which will entirely settle the dispute, and also adjust the boundary line between 

Venezuela an British Guiana. 

“No matter how the question is settled, I feel that the work of the commission has not been in 

vain, as we have gathered together a lot of useful information that will be valuable in years to come. 

The suggestion of a permanent court to try all disputed questions of international boundary is, I 

think, a good one, but I do not know that such a scheme is to be incorporated in the proposed 

treaty. 

“Regarding the clause at the treaty that provides that in the ‘settled districts’ a term of fifty years 

of undisturbed residence shall be regarded as giving the right of possession, I think it is no more 

than right. It is only another illustration of the law of vested interests. Of course, if the Venezuelans 

sit idly by and see the English make improvements and cultivate the land for such a length of time, 

then certainly they ought not to reap the rewards of another’s work.” 


- 375 - 

PRESIDENT GILMAN TALKS 

The War Cloud with Which the Year Opened Dissipated 

BALTIMORE, Nov. 11.—President Gilman of Johns Hopkins University, and one of the 

members of the Venezuelan Commission, was asked to-day for his opinion as to whether the effect 

524


of the published decision was to make the Monroe doctrine international law or to establish a virtual 

protectorate on the part of this country over Venezuela. He declared himself very unwilling to be 

interviewed until more definite information as to the provisions of the treaty was in his possession. 

Finally, however, he made the following statement: 

“It is obvious that all the data requisite to the formation of an opinion have not yet been made 

public by the United States or Great Britain; but enough has been said to show that the principle of 

arbitration is heartily accepted by both nations, and that they are very near in complete accord upon 

the best method of procedure, if, indeed, they are not absolutely so. 

“It will be time enough to consider the relations of the correspondence between Lord Salisbury 

and Mr. Olney to the recognition of the Monroe doctrine when that correspondence is published. 

All that need be said at the moment is that the Administration, in every difficult and embarrassing 

controversy, has succeeded in securing a concert of action between the parties interested, and that 

this is in the interest of peace and international good will. The war cloud with which the year opened 

has been dissipated by arguments, investigations and concessions.” 


- 376 - 

THE PRESIDENT PLEASED 

SETTLEMENT OF VENEZUELAN MATTER A VICTORY 

Many Congratulations Received—Venezuela Practically Ignored in the Final 

Negotiations—Further Delays Necessary 

WASHINGTON, Nov. 11.—Telegrams of congratulation on the peaceable settlement of the 

Venezuelan controversy are pouring in on the President. 

Though the concessions made by Great Britain are not all that were at first demanded, her 

agreeing to arbitrate the question at all, even in its qualified form, is regarded by the Administration 

as a decided victory for this country. 

The President finds further satisfaction in the result because it is, in his opinion, an assurance 

that a general treaty of arbitration between this country and Great Britain will now be concluded 

before the expiration of his term. He is keenly desirous of negotiating such a treaty. It will be 

considered a guarantee of peace between the two greatest nations of the world for all time. 

Moreover, it will pave the way for similar treaties between this and others of the great powers, a 

consummation devoutly to be wished. 

There is already speculation as to the membership of the American part of the commission. The 

prevailing opinion among public men here seems to be that the two will be taken from the 

Venezuela Commission, and that Justice Brewer and Frederic H. Coudert are the most likely ones to 

be so honored. 


525


- 377 - 

THE ARBITRATION COMMISSION 

King Oscar of Sweden Will Probably Be the Fifth Member 

LONDON, Nov. 11.—Information comes from the Foreign Office that King Oscar II of 

Sweden and Norway will be asked to act as the fifth member of the board of arbitration to which 

the Venezuelan boundary dispute will be referred for settlement. 

The officials of the Foreign Office take exceptions to the statements which have been made that 

Venezuela will not be represented directly in the arbitration tribunal. The Foreign Office authorities 

suggest that there is still doubt whether Venezuela will have her own member of the tribunal. At any 

rate, Great Britain regards the United States’ representatives as acting for Venezuela. 

It is understood that Lord Esher will retire from the office of Master of the Rolls early in 1897, 

and that Sir Richard E. Webster, Attorney General, will succeed him. Sir Robert B. Finlay, Solicitor 

General, will conduct the case of Great Britain before the Venezuela Arbitration Commission. Sir 

Edward Clarke is debarred from taking any part in the proceedings, in consequence of his recent 

speeches unfavorable to the British contentions. 


- 378 - 

A TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT 

England, the United States, and Venezuela Will Sign 

LONDON, Nov. 12.—The New-York correspondent of The Standard affirms that instead of 

entering upon a contract with Venezuela or the United States, Great Britain will sign an agreement 

with both. The Anglo-American document will not be technically a treaty; it will merely be a 

protocol for preparing an Anglo-Venezuelan treaty. This is owing to the delay that would arise in the 

ratification of a treaty through the peculiar Venezuela laws. 

The progress of the arbitration will thus be greatly facilitated, since the protocol will stipulate 

that the findings of the arbitration court must be completed before Feb. 9. Each Instrument will 

refer to the other, compelling them to be construed together, but the less formal document is the 

more important of the two. 

The Daily News will to-morrow say that rumors are current of a resumption of diplomatic 

relations between Great Britain and Venezuela. 


- 379 - 

THE VENEZUELAN UMPIRE 

526


KING OSCAR OF SWEDEN MAY BE SELECTED TO ACT 

Governments at Washington and London Speculating on the 

Composition of the Commission of Arbitration. 

WASHINGTON. Nov. 12.—President Cleveland will consider it a bit of good fortune if he may 

be able, on Dec. 7 or 8, to announce the agreement of the United States and Great Britain to a treaty 

of arbitration of the Venezuela-Guiana boundary. 

If the protocol is approved before that time, the announcement of the fact may come from 

England, either for Great Britain or for Venezuela. From whatever direction it may come, the 

President is not likely to overlook the aim that Secretary Olney has constantly kept in sight. He has 

disregarded all opportunities for popularity to be secured by publication of the correspondence as it 

led toward arbitration, preferring to await the tendency of Great Britain to acknowledge, as some of 

the British papers admit that Lord Salisbury has, that the Monroe doctrine is having the force of 

international law in such controversies as this between Venezuela and Great Britain. 

Acting merely as “the friend of Venezuela,” the United States Government has about brought 

Venezuela and Great Britain together again in diplomatic relations, which will have been resumed 

when the Minister of Venezuela shall sign the treaty that is proposed for the arbitration of the 

boundary between Venezuela and Guiana. 

It is not expected that it will be necessary to consult the Senate of the United States in the 

matter, so that the delay that might occur through a partisan division of that body will be avoided. 

Secretary Olney is apparently of the same opinion as Lord Salisbury, in considering the controversy 

ended. The manner of selection of the arbitrators for Great Britain and Venezuela, and the mere 

detail as to whether King Oscar of Sweden, or a substitute shall act as umpire, are considered as 

comparatively unimportant details. 

The admission is made at the State Department that King Oscar of Sweden may be called into 

the Venezuelan arbitration, but only in case of a disagreement by the four arbitrators appointed in 

the first instance as to the selection of the fifth member, when the King will be asked to designate 

some person as President of the tribunal. This is considered an exceedingly distant contingency, as 

no doubt is felt that the four original appointees will have no difficulty in reaching common ground 

on the matter with the same facility that they are expected to reach a conclusion on the evidence in 

the boundary dispute. It is further said that it has never been contemplated that the King himself 

should be the final arbitrator, or that the tribunal should hold its sessions in Norway or Sweden, 

although the locality is left to their discretion. As all the evidence in the controversy has now been 

collected together in Washington, there is suggested a bare possibility that they might deem it 

advantageous to meet here, but the documents and other data are rapidly being arranged in such a 

way by the commission that they could be taken to any desirable place without difficulty. 


- 380 - 

PLANS AS TO VENEZUELA 

TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT FOR A SETTLEMENT 

527


Two Arbitrators to be Chosen by the United States and Two by Great Britain— 

The Fifth Member to Preside 

LONDON, Nov. 13.—The Chronicle will to-morrow publish what it claims to be a complete 

summary of the agreement regarding the Venezuelan question. The article is entitled “Heads of a 

Proposed Agreement Between Venezuela and Great Britain for the settlement of the Venezuelan 

Boundary Question as Agreed upon Between Great Britain and the United States of America.” 

There are four heads. Under the first the appointment of an arbitration tribunal to determine the 

boundary is provided for. 

Under the second head provision Is made for the appointment of a tribunal of five members, 

two be nominated by the Supreme Court of the United States, two by the Supreme Court of Great 

Britain, while the fifth member is to be a jurist selected by the other members. 

In the event of these four members failing to agree upon the selection of the fifth member, King 

Oscar of Sweden and Norway will select him. The fifth member will be President of the tribunal, 

and he may be a Judge of either the Supreme Court of the United States or the similar court of 

Great Britain. 

Under the third head the tribunal is directed to examine all the facts necessary to decide the 

controversy regarding the territory known to belong to the United Netherlands and the Kingdom of 

Spain, when Great Britain acquired Guiana. 

Under the fourth head it is provided that the arbitrators shall ascertain all the facts necessary to 

arrive at a proper decision. They must be governed in their findings by three short rules, the most 

important of which provides a prescription of fifty years. The arbitrators may give effect to the 

rights of settlers. In establishing the facts the ordinary rules of law shall prevail. 

The agreement is dated Nov. 12, 1896, and is signed by Secretary of State Olney and Sir Julian 

Pauncefote, the British Ambassador to the United States. 

The Chronicle adds that the foregoing will be the basis of the Anglo-Venezuelan treaty. 

The St. James’s Gazette says that Right Hon. H. H. Asquith, M. P., formerly Home Secretary, and 

Sir George Baden-Powell, M. P., will probably be appointed to represent Great Britain on the 

Venezuelan Arbitration Tribunal. 

Treating of the settlement of the Venezuelan question, The Daily News, in its issue to-morrow, 

will comment upon certain Tory complaints that Lord Salisbury climbed down from the position 

first assumed by him, which was that there was “nothing to arbitrate,” and also upon the complaints 

of some French and German critics that Lord Salisbury has improperly exalted the United States. 

The paper contends that there is no doubt that Lord Salisbury did climb down somewhat, but 

that Secretary of State Olney did likewise. It adds that Lord Salisbury has in nowise admitted the 

new version of the Monroe doctrine, either theoretically or formally, but that Mr. Olney has 

succeeded to some extent in establishing it. It will be interesting, The News concludes, to see how far 

Mr. Olney or his successor is willing to follow up the step. 


- 381 - 

THE VENEZUELAN COURT 

The Men Whom, It Is Supposed, Lord Salisbury Will Appoint 

528


LONDON, Nov. 14.—Sir Richard Webster, Attorney General, is supposed to be disqualified 

for membership in the Venezuelan arbitration court, as he is committed to an opinion through his 

advocacy of the British case. Sir Edward Clarke, ex-Solicitor General, and Sit Frederick Pollock, 

Corpus Professor of Jurisprudence of Oxford University, are also disqualified, the former through 

his opposition to the British claims and the latter by his support of them. 

It is surmised that Lord Salisbury will select Lord Herschell, formerly Lord High Chancellor and 

now a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and Lord Davey, a Lord of Appeal 

in Ordinary, and also a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It may be, however, 

that Prof. Thomas Erskine Holland, Chichele Professor of International Law at Oxford University, 

will be selected as one of the British judges. 


- 382 - 


CONGRESS WILL NOT HELP TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE 

By the Agreement Between Venezuela and Great Britain, the Senate 

and the House Are Avoided 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1.—In course of time, probably before Major McKinley shall have been 

inaugurated as President of the United States, the Congress will be informed, by a message from the 

President, that the Venezuela-Guiana dispute has been amicably settled, and that he settlement has 

been approved by the United States as the mutual friend of the disputants. 

Unless the negotiations now in progress fail utterly, this settlement will be brought about 

without the cooperation of the Congress in either branch. The danger to which an attempt to bring 

about such a settlement would have been exposed was early appreciated by the Secretary of State. 

The difficulty of avoiding the Congress was also great. Venezuela and Great Britain were not on 

good terms. Years ago, in consequence or the attitude of Venezuela toward Great Britain in this 

matter, diplomatic relations between the two countries were severed. Two nations not having 

diplomatic intercourse are at a decided disadvantage then there is a bone of contention between 

them. 

Secretary Olney was determined that the controversy should be settled, if possible, and it was an 

outcome of this determination that brought on the announcement by the President in his message to 

the Congress about a year ago, in which the Monroe doctrine was reasserted, and the determination 

of the Administration expressed to regard as an unfriendly act the effort of any European nation to 

extend its territory on this Continent at the expense of any American nation. The assumption was 

that the United States Government would proceed, by force, to maintain the Monroe doctrine. But 

correspondence between the Department of State and the British Foreign Office brought about 

quite a different result. An agreement between the United States and Great Britain was reached by 

the terms of which, if carried out, Great Britain and Venezuela will be brought together in friendly 

intercourse, and the boundary dispute settled without resort to bloody and expensive war. 

Acting as a friend of Venezuela, the Secretary of State and the British Ambassador have agreed 

to the basis of a settlement of the boundary dispute. The terms of the agreement have been 

529


repeatedly referred to. The most important thing about this agreement is that by acting only as the 

friend of Venezuela and Great Britain the United States Government has avoided much delay and 

all opposition that might spring from factional opposition in the United States. The Senate can be 

depended upon, as now constituted, to refuse approval to most propositions sent to the Senate for 

its advice and consent. 

If Señor Andrade, the Venezuelan Minister in Washington shall succeed in the mission upon 

which he was sent to Caracas, by in impressing upon Venezuela the responsibility for failure to bring 

the negotiations to a successful issue, it is believed that the terms approved by Secretary Olney will 

be accepted, and that upon the return of the Venezuelan Minister there will remain to be completed 

only a few details so immaterial to the main questions that they can be settled without arousing the 

national pride of either nation to the dispute. 

Several gains will be made by bringing the controversy to a close in this way. Great Britain and 

Venezuela will resume amicable intercourse as one result of the friendly intervention of the United 

States. 

The unfriendliness of the United States Senate to the Administration will become of no 

importance whatever as an obstacle. With the signing of the agreement by the Minister of Venezuela 

and the Ambassador of Great Britain all necessity for a preliminary treaty between the United States 

and Great Britain will be done away with. Venezuela will secure such of her territory as the 

arbitrators decide is of right hers to hold; Great Britain will have a boundary clearly and indisputably 

defined, and the United States will secure a recognition of the Munroe doctrine at the same time that 

a war has been averted against a nation entirely unprepared to offer battle to so strong an antagonist 

as Great Britain. 

Señor Andrade has gone to Venezuela fully impressed with the importance of overcoming any 

opposition that may be offered by unreasonable patriots who would prefer to assert the right of 

Venezuela to the most ancient Venezuelan boundary rather than yield an inch. Domestic differences 

may make this difficult in Venezuela, and thwart the purposes of Secretary Olney and Sir Julian 

Pauncefote. But a refusal of the terms offered may justify the United States Government in 

withdrawing its good offices. Such an outcome would be mortifying to the United States and 

disastrous, perhaps, to Venezuela, which might be obliged to ask for a resumption of diplomatic 

relations with Great Britain in order to secure a less satisfactory adjustment only after a prolonged 

and hurtful war. The United States would be unwilling to be involved in that war. After a war the 

United States might be called upon to undertake again precisely the negotiations which have 

progressed almost to a conclusion without the firing of a gun, the loss of a life, or the sacrifice of 

national pride. 

If the Venezuelan Congress proves to be moderate and appreciative of the efforts of the United 

States, the boundary controversy may be settled before President Cleveland leaves Washington for 

his new home in Princeton. 


- 383 - 

BRITISH GUIANA BOUNDARY 

Rules Governing the Anglo-Venezuelan Arbitrators 

530


The London Chronicle publishes the rules which it says will govern the arbitrators under the treaty 

between England and Venezuela according to the agreement arranged between negotiators upon 

behalf of England and the United States. It appears to settle in favor of England the mooted point 

whether private occupation or political administration is included within the period of prescription. 

Both are included. How much practical effect this will have in enlarging England’s award is 

doubtful. But it is certain that while England’s individual occupation is comparatively limited and 

recent, scarcely ante-dating the discovery of gold, England’s political control is a question of a very 

different sort. Venezuela, for example, has not had “political control” within the Schomburgk line 

since it was drawn, in 1841. Quite possibly the arbitrators may rule that disputed or protested 

control is no control at all, but the point will certainly be contested. The agreement was in The 

Times of Nov. 14. These are the supplementary rules: 

1. Adverse holding or prescription during a period of fifty years shall make a good title. The 

arbitrators may deem exclusive political control of a district, as well as actual settlement there, 

sufficient to constitute adverse holding or to make title by prescription. 

2. The arbitrators may recognize and give effect to rights and claims resting on any other ground 

whatever valid according to international law, and on any principles of international law which the 

arbitrators may deem to be applicable to the case, and which are not in contravention of the 

foregoing rules. 

3. In determining the boundary line, if the territory of one party be found by the tribunal to have 

been at the date at this treaty in occupation of the citizens or subjects of the other party, such effect 

shall be given to such occupation as reason, justice, the principles of international law, and the 

equities of the case shall, in the opinion of the tribunal, require. 


- 384 - 

THE REAL VENEZUELAN QUESTION 

In the present situation in the United States Senate it is plainly a good thing that no action by 

that body is needed to carry out the proposed settlement of the Anglo-Venezuelan question. But it is 

a still better thing that the proposed settlement does not involve positive action by the American 

Government at all, but is to be carried out by the two Governments directly interested. In this fact 

lies much if not most of the value of the outcome of the policy of the United States Government as 

developed in the last year. 

This is a point which has escaped the attention of the leading journals of England, or, if they are 

aware of it, they do not give it the weight it should have, and make assumptions quite inconsistent 

with it. Papers of all parties—Liberal, Radical, Conservative, and Unionist—after Lord Salisbury’s 

Guildhall speech joined in crying out, in effect, that at last the United States had been forced to take 

the responsibility for their policy in the Venezuela matter, and could thenceforth be made to keep all 

the South American Republics in order. The English papers declared that their Government, having 

been induced by our Government to settle a dispute with Venezuela on terms practically dictated by 

the United States, ignoring Venezuela, all future business with that little nation, or with others of 

531


South America, would be done through and by the United States, and at our risk. We had assumed a 

virtual protectorate and must take all the responsibilities that go with a protectorate. 

Nothing of the sort is true. If Lord Salisbury had tried to conduct his negotiations on any such 

basis, and with the purpose of securing an open or implied acknowledgment by the United States of 

any such unlimited liability, the negotiations would have come to a prompt, perhaps to a disastrous, 

close. What the United States Government has done in this whole question is really very simple. It 

can easily be disentangled from the long and voluminous record, because the real purpose of our 

Government has been distinctly conceived and clearly kept in view. The United States Government 

has insisted that Great Britain, in a dispute involving the essential territorial rights of an American 

State, should not enforce its own decision, but should consent to submit the dispute to an impartial 

arbitration. 

Great Britain has consented. The President has done what he could to arrange the terms of the 

arbitration. There the matter ends. We have not undertaken to force Venezuela to accept arbitration, 

nor are we bound, if she does accept it, to force her to carry out the decision arrived at. We have 

provided a way by which justice may be done. That is all that Venezuela had any right to ask us to 

do and all that we had any right to try to do, and our position is made clear and impregnable by the 

terms reached between the two Governments directly involved. 


- 385 - 

THE VENEZUELAN TREATY 

A CHIEF FEATURE OP THE PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 

The Agreement Under Which Arbitration is to Proceed— 

Proposed Treaty between Great Britain and This Nation 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6.—The probable assent of Venezuela to the proposed treaty of 

arbitration of the British Guiana boundary dispute through the good offices of the United States and 

the practical conclusion of a general arbitration convention between Great Britain and the United 

States, it is stated, will form two of the most important diplomatic announcements in the President’s 

message to Congress tomorrow. 

What is understood to be in nearly all essential particulars a copy of the preliminary agreement 

entered into some weeks ago between Secretary Olney and Sir Julian Pauncefote on the Venezuelan 

matter is made public. The draft of the proposed treaty itself, which the Venezuelan Minister, Mr. 

Andrade, carried with him to Caracas to lay before his Government, is more elaborate than this 

agreement. 

It starts with a preamble of considerable length, and in that portion which refers to the fifty-year 

occupation of territory in dispute embodies other points besides mere occupancy and political 

control, which will be taken into consideration by the tribunal. These are expressed in technical 

terms, which international lawyers will understand, but which would not be readily comprehended 

by others. The language of the agreement signed by Secretary Olney and Sir Julian Pauncefote is 

largely informal. For instance, there is a blunt reference to the “King of Sweden,” without any of the 

customary terms of courtesy and full titles. The agreement is substantially as follows: 

532


The Agreement 

1. An arbitral tribunal shall be immediately appointed, to determine the boundary line between 

the colony of British Guiana and the Republic of Venezuela. 

2. The tribunal shall consist of two members nominated by the Judges of the Supreme Court of 

the United States and two members nominated by the Judges of the British High Court of Justice, 

and a fifth selected b the four persons so nominated; or in the event of their failure to agree within 

three months from the time of their nomination, selected by the King of Sweden. The person so 

selected shall be the President of the tribunal. The persons nominated by the Judges of the United 

States and the British High Court of Justice, respectively, may be judges of either of said courts. 

3. The tribunal shall investigate and ascertain the extent of the territories belonging to, or that 

might be lawfully claimed by the United Netherlands or by the Kingdom of Spain, respectively, at 

the time of the acquisition by Great Britain of the colony of British Guiana, and shall determine the 

boundary line between the colony of British Guiana and the Republic of Venezuela. 

4. In deciding the matter submitted, the arbitrators shall ascertain all facts which they deem 

necessary to a decision of the controversy, and shall be governed by the following rules, which are 

agreed upon by the high contracting parties as rules to be taken as applicable to the case, and by 

such principles of international law not inconsistent therewith as the arbitrators shall determine to 

be applicable to the case. 

Rules of the Tribunal 

The rules which are to govern the tribunal have been broadened in the treaty itself, but as 

covered in the preliminary agreement they read: 

“1. Adverse holding or prescription during a period of fifty years shall make good title. The 

arbitrators may deem exclusive political control of a district as well as actual settlement thereof 


“2. The arbitrators may recognize and give effect to rights and claims resting upon any other 

ground whatever valid according to existing international law and on any principle of international 

law which the arbitrators may deem to be applicable to the case and are not in contravention to the 

foregoing rules. 

“3. In determining the boundary line, if the territory of one party be found by the tribunal to 

have been in the occupation of the subjects or citizens of the other party, such effect shall be given 

to such occupation as reason, justice, the principles of international law, and the equities of the case 

shall, in the opinion of the tribunal, require.” 

Advices received from Caracas do not bear out the impression that the Venezuelan Cabinet is 

dissatisfied with the treaty or that Minister Andrade who will shortly return to the United States, will 

bring with him the draft of a new treaty as modified by the Venezuelan authorities. On the contrary, 

there are grounds for the belief that President Crespo and his Constitutional advisers have given 

their full adhesion to the proposed treaty. 

Under these circumstances, it will be signed by Mr. Andrade, representing the South American. 

Republic, and by Sir Julian, on the part or Great Britain, after which the United States will drop out 

of the matter well satisfied to have been the medium of bringing the two countries together and of 

effecting a settlement of their long dispute through the peaceful channel of an international Board of 

Arbitrators. 

533


The Treaty Will Be Ratified 

It was only in this way, it is asserted on high authority, that such a conclusion could have been 

reached, as diplomatic relations between Venezuela and Great Britain have long been suspended, 

and it was well known that her Majesty’s Government would not consent that Venezuela should 

have any voice in the selection of the board. While it is entirely true that the ratification of the treaty 

must still depend upon the will of the Venezuelan Congress, no doubt is felt that that body will 

indorse President Crespo’s action. 

In regard to a general treaty of arbitration between the United States and Great Britain it is stated 

that the President’s message will show that negotiations are practically concluded and that it will be 

the President’s pleasure within a few weeks at the utmost to lay the treaty before the Senate for its 

consideration. It is substantially finished now, excepting a few matters of detail that are still the 

subject of correspondence, but respecting which there will be little if any additional delay. 


- 386 - 

VENEZUELA IS SATISFIED 

She Accepts the Treaty of Arbitration with Great Britain 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 7.—Venezuela has accepted the arbitration as agreed upon by Secretary 

Olney and Sir Julian Pauncefote. 

Secretary Olney received to-day a cablegram from Minister Andrade, at Caracas, that the 

memorandum between Great Britain and the United States for the settlement of the boundary 

question had been accepted by the Venezuelan Government. 

Minister Andrade’s cablegram further stated that the memorandum will be published at Caracas 

this afternoon, and that an extra session of the Venezuelan Congress would be called as soon as 

possible, in order that the memorandum may be carried into effect by the necessary treaty between 

Great Britain and Venezuela. 


- 387 - 

SECRETARY OLNEY’S REPORT 

General Arbitration with Great Britain Foreshadowed 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 7.—The report of the Secretary of State, to which President Cleveland 

referred in his message to Congress, states that “the relations of the United States with foreign 

powers continue upon that footing of harmony and friendliness which has been their fortunate 

characteristic for so many years.” The report summarizes the more important questions which have 

occupied the attention or the department during the current year. 

534


THE VENEZUELAN DISPUTE 

General Arbitration Foreshadowed as the Outcome of the Discussion 

Of the dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela it says: “The long-protracted dispute 

between Great Britain and Venezuela in regard to the boundary between the latter republic and 

British Guiana has, for a number of years past, attracted the earnest attention of this Government 

and enlisted its often renewed friendly offices to bring about an adjustment of the question in the 

best interests of right and justice, as determinable by the historical record and the actual facts. The 

extended discussion of the subject culminated in July of last year, in an. elaborate presentation to the 

British Government of the views of the United States touching the opportune-ness and necessity of 

a final disposition of the points at issue by the pacific resort of an equitable arbitration. 

“The entire correspondence having been laid before Congress by the President with his message 

of Dec. 17, 1895, that body provided for the appointment of a commission of eminent jurists to 

examine and report touching the ascertainable facts of the controversy, with a view to enable this 

Government to determine the further course in the matter. That commission has pursued its labors 

unremittingly during the present year, its researches being greatly aided by the elaborate statements 

placed at its disposal by both the interested Governments, together with a mass of documentary 

evidence furnished from the archives of the European countries that shared in the early discoveries 

and settlement of South America. 

Amicable Counsels Prevail 

“Pending this arduous investigation, however, the Governments of the United States and Great 

Britain have omitted no endeavor to reach a friendly understanding upon the main issue of principle 

through diplomatic negotiation, and it is most gratifying to announce that amicable counsels have 

prevailed to induce a satisfactory result, whereby the boundary question and its associated phases 

have been at last eliminated as between this country and England. A complete accord has been 

reached between them, by which the substantial terms of a treaty of arbitration to be concluded by 

Great Britain and Venezuela have been agreed upon, the provisions of which embrace a full 

arbitration of the whole controversy upon bases alike just and honorable to both the contestants. It 

only remains for the two parties directly concerned to complete this equitable arrangement by 

signing the proposed formal treaty, and no doubt is entertained that Venezuela. which has so 

earnestly sought the friendly assistance of the United States toward the settlement of the vexatious 

contention, and which has so unreservedly confided its interests to the impartial judgment or this 

Government, will assent to the formal adjustment thus attained, thus forever ending a dispute 

involving far-reaching consequences to the peace and welfare of the Western Continent. 

General Arbitration Probable 

“Coincidentally with the consideration of the Venezuela boundary question, the two 

Governments have continued negotiations for a general convention, in the line of the 

recommendations of the British House of Commons, to which previous messages of the President 

have adverted, that all differences hereafter arising between the two countries and not amenable to 

ordinary diplomatic treatment should be referred to arbitration. The United States and Great Britain, 

having given repeated proof of their acquiescence in the great principle involved, not only by treaties 

535


between themselves by severally by concluding like adjustments with other powers for the 

adjudication of disputes resting on law and fact, the subject was naturally approached in a 

benevolent spirit of agreement, and the negotiations have so satisfactorily progressed as to 

foreshadow a practical agreement at an early date upon the text of a convention to the desired end.” 


- 388 - 

VENEZUELAN TREATY SAFE 

Its Details Were Known to President Crespo Long Ago 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 12.—It is ascertained from official sources that every detail of the 

proposed Venezuelan treaty was communicated to Señor Andrade, the Venezuelan Minister, before 

he left Washington, and was by him cabled to President Crespo at Caracas, and the approval of the 

Venezuelan Government was obtained by cable before Mr. Andrade started on his purely 

perfunctory mission of carrying over a copy of the proposed treaty to submit to the Cabinet. 

“This,” said a high official to-day, “was simply done to invest the instrument with that dignity 

and character so dear to the Latin-American heart. There was not a word in the treaty which was not 

previously known to the Venezuelan Government, and which had not been approved in advance.” 

“How do you account for the fact,” was asked, “that Mr. Andrade, before leaving the city, 

asserted that he was simply going over to New York to visit the Horse Show, and that he did not 

know anything about any treaty, but had been kept in darkest ignorance of the progress of the 

negotiations?” 

Oh, that is diplomacy,” was the reply. 

“Will the treaty be concluded before the close of Secretary Olney’s administration?” 

“Most assuredly.” 

The statement in these dispatches yesterday that ex-Minister Michelena’s attack on the treaty was 

purely a political move directed against Crespo is confirmed by dispatches received from Caracas today. 

Michelena is described as “always pestiferous,” and it is stated that his efforts have fallen flat 

and will fail. 


- 389 - 

MINISTER ANDRADE COMING 

Believed That He Has Power to Sign the Venezuelan Treaty 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 24.—Mr. Andrade, the Venezuelan Minister to the United States, who 

went to Caracas two months ago to lay the protocol of the new boundary treaty with Great Britain 

before the Venezuelan Cabinet, is expected to reach Washington on Saturday of this week. The State 

536


Department, notwithstanding reports to the contrary, has every reason to believe he has been 

empowered by President Crespo to sign the treaty on behalf of Venezuela. 

The Department has been fully advised of the protests which a few ambitious politicians in the 

republic made against the treaty, but its information is that these influences were strongly repressed 

by Crespo, who, while not satisfied with every detail, believed the treaty to be on the whole all that 

Venezuela can consistently ask. If Mr. Andrade, as is expected, shall reach Washington by Monday 

next, himself and the British Ambassador will, meet—presumably at the British Embassy—almost 

immediately, and formally sign the protocol, thus clearing the way for that settlement “of the true 

divisional line between Venezuela and British Guiana” which formed the subject of President 

Cleveland’s special message to Congress a year ago, and which, it was feared for a time, would 

involve us in war with her Majesty’s Government. 


- 390 - 

ARBITRATION IS ASSURED 

TREATY WITH GREAT BRITAIN TO BE SIGNED THIS WEEK 

Señor Andrade and Sir Julian Pauncefote Arranging Final Details 

in Relation to the Venezuelan Boundary Settlement 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 28.—The latest information respecting the Anglo-American treaty, 

under the terms of which all future disputes between the United States and Great Britain not 

involving the National honor of the two Governments are to be referred to an arbitration tribunal, is 

that it will be signed by the British Ambassador, Sir Julian Pauncefote, and by Secretary Olney, 

representing the United States, this week. The last point of difference between the two gentlemen 

was settled a few days ago and the result cabled to Lord Salisbury for his approval. State Department 

officials believe that Lord Salisbury’s reply, which is expected to be favorable, will reach Washington 

not later than Wednesday, in which event the formal signing of the treaty will immediately follow. It 

is predicted to-day that the treaty will be sent to the Senate within a few days after the reassembling 

of Congress next week. 

The international incident of the Venezuelan boundary dispute is considered closed as far as the 

United States is concerned, and all further negotiations for its adjudication lie wholly with the two 

parties to the controversy, Venezuela and Great Britain. At the State Department it is that with the 

acceptance by the Venezuelan Executive three weeks ago of the heads for the proposed treaty of 

arbitration as signed by Sir Julian Pauncefote and Mr. Olney on Nov. 12, the friendly intervention of 

the United States had been completed and the only additional acts of the United States in the matter 

will be the publication of the evidence and reports collected by the Venezuelan High Commission 

and the eventual reference to the United States Supreme Court of the concurrent request of the two 

countries for the appointment of two jurists as members of the tribunal. 


537


- 391 - 

THE TREATY OF ARBITRATION 

A year ago to-day nobody could possibly have foreseen what the ultimate result of the special 

message of the President upon the question of the boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela 

would be. There were many who thought it meant war. There were more who, regarding it as an 

obstacle to peace, yet maintained that peace would be preserved in spite at it. But not a solitary 

prophet proclaimed that it would establish peace between the foremost two of the English-speaking 

nations on a firmer basis than ever and make it more difficult than it had before been for a flurry of 

popular excitement or a fog of popular confusion to hurry England and America into war. 

It is true that the option of going to war is still left open to both nations, and it is well that this 

should be so. War remains, what it has always been, the “last argument of Kings.” A nation which 

proclaims that under no compulsion will it fight invites oppression and insult. In the proposals for a 

Pan-American union which involved a general scheme of arbitration more than one State refused to 

acquiesce beforehand in an unlimited application of the scheme. Questions of national honor and 

questions of territorial integrity, they declared, were not arbitrable. This is the ground that Lord 

Salisbury has taken, and a reservation is accordingly made in the treaty. When either nation is really 

bent upon war, the right of carrying out the national will remains to it under the treaty. 

But, while the right remains, the difficulty of exercising it is immensely increased. It is quite true 

that a nation so disposed may withdraw from arbitration almost any question under the pretense 

that it is not arbitrable. But it must do so deliberately, formally, and in the face of the world. It is not 

to be expected that a great nation will ever resume to quibble under such a scrutiny and such a 

responsibility, that it will venture to withdraw from arbitration a question which to impartial 

mankind seems a proper subject for arbitration. We have had but one war with Great Britain since 

the war by which we obtained our independence of her. It is difficult to imagine that the war of 

1812 could have occurred if the treaty now ready for signature had then been in force. It is 

inconceivable that the claims for the enforcement of which the war was undertaken would have 

been either presented to a tribunal of arbitration or withheld from it under the pretension, publicly 

made and submitted to the judgment of mankind, that they were not proper for arbitration. 

As we have said, the great result now about to be consummated would not have been brought 

about but for the action which so many of us a year ago deprecated or deplored. That England and 

America might submit their disputes to arbitration was merely a vague aspiration or a pious opinion 

until the Venezuelan question made of it a living issue and forced it to a solution. It is to be hoped 

that the treaty may receive its signature before the close of the year and of the holiday season. No 

more acceptable New Year’s gift could be made to mankind than the agreement which marks the 

longest stride ever taken toward reducing to practice the sentiment of the Christmas season: “Peace 

on earth, good will toward men.” 


538


- Part 12 - 

1897 - 1898 

539

1897 – 1898 

540


- 392 - 


Only Point of Difference on the Place of Tribunal’s Meeting 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 11.—Sir Julian Pauncefote and Minister Andrade as Plenipotentiaries of 

their respective countries to negotiate the Anglo-Venezuela arbitration treaty have, it is claimed, not 

yet completed their work, although the main points of the convention as agreed upon in the Olney 

memorandum were long ago disposed of. Other details, with one or two exceptions, involved no 

delay. The place of meeting of the tribunal is the chief point of difference, Venezuela preferring 

Washington. 

Minister Andrade says that the Venezuelan Congress could, however, even at this late day, be 

assembled on a few days’ notice, and he expressed the hope that the treaty will be ready for 

ratification early in February, although he declines to say how long it will take to reach an agreement. 

It is believed that the two Plenipotentiaries reached a practical agreement last week on a 

provisional treaty, and that copies thereof have been sent to London and Caracas in which blank 

spaces were left for the place of the tribunal’s sessions, to be filled in by cable messages. 

No doubt is expressed in the certain eventual ratification of the treaty which has been considered 

by all parties to have been practically concluded, on Nov. 12, when Sir Julian and Secretary Olney 

signed the memorandum. 

[12 January 1897] 

- 393 - 

HISTORY OF THE TREATY 

It Represents the Ideas of the President, Gresham, and Olney 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 11.—President Cleveland has to-day crowned his Administration as Chief 

Magistrate by sending to the Senate a general treaty of arbitration negotiated by Secretary of State 

Richard Olney and her Britannic Majesty’s Ambassador, Sir Julian Pauncefote. 

With the approval of the Senate, this will, it is believed, prove to be an instrument of inestimable 

benefit in assuring a continuance of cordial relations between the two great English-speaking 

powers, and will entitle the President and Secretary Olney to the gratitude of many generations of 

Americans. 

The treaty that was signed to-day has been negotiated within a year of the time when the two 

Governments began to address themselves seriously to the question. General arbitration had been 

proposed when the Venezuelan controversy became critical, and the necessity for disposing at once 

of that dispute made it easy to try arbitration in that case, to test the practicability of extending the 

jurisdiction of arbitration. The success met with in reaching a basis of agreement to arbitrate the 

Venezuela-Guiana boundary matter pointed the way to the larger and more important general 

arbitration treaty, and under the terms of the thirteen articles in the pending convention about 

everything upon which the United States may disagree with Great Britain, except questions touching 

541

1897 – 1898 

National integrity or honor, will hereafter be settled by a court of arbitrators and an umpire to be 

selected by the court. 

The First Step 

The first step toward the accomplishment of this gratifying result was taken by the late Secretary 

Gresham, in February, 1896. Ambassador Bayard asked Lord Salisbury to permit her Majesty’s 

Ambassador at Washington to enter upon negotiations with Secretary of State Olney for a 

settlement of the Venezuela-Guiana boundary by arbitration. This was on March 3, readily 

concurred in by Lord Salisbury, who gave permission to Sir Julian Pauncefote to discuss the 

question, either with a representative of Venezuela or that of the United States as the friend of 


In a note to Sir J. Pauncefote, written March 5, 1896, Lord Salisbury referred to the fact that a 

year earlier communications had been exchanged between Sir J. Pauncefote and Secretary Gresham 

upon the establishment of a system of international arbitration for the adjustment of disputes 

between the two Governments. It appeared to Lord Salisbury that the occasion was favorable for 

renewing the discussion upon a subject in which both nations feel a strong interest. The British 

Prime Minister discussed the question at liberal length asserting at the outset that “neither 

Government is willing to accept arbitration upon issues in which the National honor or integrity is 

involved.” He sent the heads of a proposed plan for two permanent judicial officers to be named by 

each Government. Upon the appearance of difference, not to be settled by negotiation, each power 

was to designate one of the permanent officers as arbitrators, they to select an umpire, whose 

decision was to be binding upon the arbitrators. But provision was made for an appeal to a court 

composed of three Judges of the Supreme Court of Great Britain and three of the Judges of the 

Supreme Court of the United States, in which a decision must be rendered by a vote of not less than 

five to one to make a valid determination. 

Mr. Olney Objects 

Secretary Olney, on April 11, wrote to Ambassador Pauncefote to commend much that had 

been suggested by Lord Salisbury, but objecting to the requirement that an award must be concurred 

in by five out of six appellate arbitrators. He proposed certain substitute heads, providing, in place 

of the features in Lord Salisbury’s plan regarded as objectionable, a scheme making all disputes 

prima facie arbitrable, each dispute to go before the tribunal unless Congress or Parliament should 

displace the jurisdiction, any agreement by the arbitrators to be final or a decision on appeal to three 

Justices of the Supreme Court of each country to be final if agreed to by a majority of the appellate 

tribunal. 

Mr. Olney argued that when Congress and the Parliament had agreed that a dispute was 

arbitrable it would be inconsistent with any reasonable theory of arbitration that an award concurred 

in by the arbitrator of the defeated country should be appealable by that country. He stated this 

proposition elaborately, analyzing Lord Salisbury’s propositions to show why they must be modified 

to make an agreement to arbitrate effective, when arbitration was to be resorted to. Mr. Olney 

closed his letter by suggesting that if no treaty for general arbitration could be then expected it was 

not improper to add that the Venezuela boundary dispute seemed to offer a good opportunity for 

one of those tentative experiments at arbitration which, as Lord Salisbury had intimated, would be 

542


of decided advantage as tending to indicate the lines upon which a scheme for general arbitration 

could be judiciously drawn. 

Lord Salisbury Yields 

Lord Salisbury’s answer to Mr. Olney was full and learned, and his argument was directed largely 

against the submission to arbitration of territorial disputes. He was plainly against surrendering 

control over claims of that kind. He did not look for a hearty adoption and practice of arbitration in 

the case of territorial demands, “unless the safety and practicability of this mode of settlement are 

first ascertained by a cautious and tentative advance.” The suggestion by Secretary Olney that a trial 

of arbitration be made in the Venezuela case was accepted. The negotiations for the agreement 

between Venezuela and Great Britain cleared the way for the later and more important treaty 

between the United States and Great Britain. 

While the success of the Administration in securing an agreement to arbitrate the Venezuela 

boundary was gratifying to Secretary Olney, and the implied recognition of the force of the Monroe 

Doctrine was regarded as a triumph for the United States, the Secretary of State undoubtedly 

considers the treaty of general arbitration as a more important achievement, and one of greater 

value, not only for the United States and Great Britain, but to the whole world. It is a victory for 

peace, making war impossible far trivial reasons, and supplying the machinery which may reduce the 

chances of war in cases that might otherwise involve two great nations in bloody and expensive 

strife. 

[12 January 1897] 

- 394 - 

CLAIMED AS A BRITISH VICTORY 

WASHINGTON Jan. 12.—The first British Guiana papers published since the Venezuelan 

agreement between this country and England reached the State Department to-day, dated as late as 

Dec. 23. They show that the whole arrangement, particularly the fifty-year clause, is highly 

satisfactory to the colonists, who consider that Great Britain has got the best at the bargain in every 

way. 

While the utterances are cautious, the papers express satisfaction “that Great Britain was able to 

secure its side without any recognition of the Monroe Doctrine.” 

[13 January 1897] 

- 395 - 

THE VENEZUELA AFFAIR 

Uruan Military Post Discontinued by the British 

543

1897 – 1898 

WASHINGTON. Jan. 22.—By direction of Lord Salisbury the military post of the Uruan, in 

British Guiana, which led to acute trouble with Venezuela, has been discontinued. 

An Indian post holder has been substituted for the police garrison, in obedience to directions 

from the Colonial Office in London, and one of the greatest thorns in Venezuela’s side is thereby 

removed. 

The news of the abandonment of the post reached the State Department to-day through the 

Demerara newspapers, which made the announcement Jan. 6. The colonists are philosophical over 

the setback, and claim that the Indian holder will constitute as effective a maintainer of their 

territorial title as the soldiers, who will not be exposed to the frequently fatal malarial influences of 

the locality. It also is stated the indemnity secured from Venezuela on account of what was known 

as the “Uruan incident,” has been apportioned among the Britons involved, Inspector Barnes and 

Baker getting $2,500 each, and the constables $500 each. 

[23 January 1897] 

- 396 - 

THE VENEZUELA TREATY 

Chief Justice Fuller and Judge Brewer Arbitrators for the Republic 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 28.—Justice Brewer of the Supreme Court to-day practically confirmed 

the report that Chief Justice Fuller and himself had been selected as arbitrators on behalf of 

Venezuela in the matter of the settlement of the boundary-line dispute between that country and 

Great Britain. The formal signing of the treaty has not yet been done, but Sir Julian Pauncefote, the 

British Ambassador, and Señor Andrade, the Venezuelan Minister, have been in daily conference, 

and it is understood that the convention is now ready for signatures. 

While these conferences have been in progress, various matters in detail, it is said, have been 

considered and determined on by the parties to the controversy, one of which was the choice by 

Venezuela of Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Brewer as its arbitrators. 

The selection of Justice Brewer, who for a year or so has been the head of the commission 

appointed by President Cleveland to make an investigation of the boundary-line question for the 

United States, is accepted as proof that the conclusions reached by the commission, which as yet 

have been withheld from the public, are that Venezuela’s claims are well founded. If it were 

otherwise, it is claimed, Venezuela would not commit her case to an unfriendly arbitrator. 

Sir Julian Pauncefote and Señor Andrade expect to complete the boundary arbitration treaty and 

sign it in time to send the Venezuelan copy to Caracas for ratification by the steamer leaving New 

York for La Guayra a week from to-day. The delay in the negotiations has been caused altogether by 

the conceded desirability of naming the arbitrators in the draft instead of providing for their 

subsequent selection. It was decided that considerable time might be saved in this way, which would 

also present the additional advantage of making known to both the contracting parties who the 

individual arbitrators would be before the exchange of ratifications. 

This suggestion, which came from Venezuela, received the prompt acquiescence of Lord 

Salisbury, and it is understood that the four representatives have already been named. The place of 

544


meeting is also understood to be closed by agreement on Geneva, Switzerland, instead of Brussels, 

proposed by Great Britain, and Washington, proposed by Venezuela. 

[29 January 1897] 

- 397 - 

VENEZUELA TREATY SIGNED 

The Ceremony Performed in Secretary of State Olney’s Office Yesterday Afternoon 

SPECIAL PEN FOR THE SIGNING 

Sir Julian Pauncefote and Señor Andrade Amicably Settle the Controversy 

Between Great Britain and Venezuela 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 2.—The Anglo- Venezuelan arbitration treaty was signed by Sir Julian 

Pauncefote, the British Ambassador, and Señor José Andrade, the Venezuelan Minister, in the office 

of Secretary Olney, at the State Department, at 4:30 o’clock this afternoon, signalizing the amicable 

termination of a controversy that has lasted nearly a century, as well as the resumption of diplomatic 

negotiations between two countries which had been suspended for ten years. 

The British Ambassador, accompanied by Mr. Henry Outram Bax-Ironside, attaché of the 

embassy, reached the department just before 4 o’clock, and a few minutes later the Venezuelan 

Minister appeared with Mr. Manuel M. Ponte, Jr., Secretary of Legation, and Mr. James S. Storrow, 

the counsel of Venezuela before the commission and the arbitration tribunal. 

Señor Andrade brought with him a magnificent pen, with which the important document was 

subsequently signed. It was sent to him by his brother, who, it is universally conceded, will be the 

next President of the Venezuelan Republic, and to whom it will be returned as a souvenir. It 

consisted at a gold pen fastened in a holder made from an eagle’s quill, bearing midway from the top 

a gold heart thickly incrusted with diamonds. While the two plenipotentiaries were formally 

exchanging their credentials, the copies of the treaty, which was printed, were carefully compared by 

Mr. Bax-Ironside and Mr. Cridler, Chief of the Diplomatic Bureau of the State Department, who 

made all the drafts of the document and printed the copies. These were in the English language, 

Spanish not being used, although the tongue of Venezuela, the only difference being that in the 

Venezuelan copy that country is mentioned always first, and in the British vice versa. 

The British Ambassador signed “Julian Pauncefote” to both copies, Señor Andrade following, 

affixed his signature, and Mr. Cridler affixed their respective seals. The formalities having been 

quickly completed, there was a general exchange of congratulations, which were pressed upon 

Secretary Olney with particular cordiality, and before 5 o’clock the negotiators had returned to their 

official residences. 

An interesting effect of the treaty will be the abolition of the Venezuelan Boundary Commission, 

of which Justice Brewer is President. The dissolution will occur when Secretary Olney notifies 

Justice Brewer that the purposes for which it was organized have been made null by the signing of 

the treaty. The evidence taken by the Venezuelan Commission will be laid before the treaty tribunal 

when it convenes. 


545

1897 – 1898 

- 398 - 

FULL TEXT OF THE TREATY 

Provision for the Arbitration Between Great Britain and Venezuela 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 —The full text of the Anglo-Venezuelan treaty follows: 

Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the United 

States of Venezuela, being desirous to provide for an amicable settlement of the question which has 

arisen between their respective Governments concerning the boundary between the Colony of 

British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, having resolved to submit to arbitration the 

question involved, and to the end of concluding a Treaty for that purpose, have appointed as their 

respective Plenipotentiaries: 

Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Right 

Honourable Sir Julian Pauncefote, a Member of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, 

Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of Bath, and of the Most Distinguished Order 

of St. Michael and St. George, and Her Majesty's Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to 

the United States: 

And the President of the United States of Venezuela, Señor José Andrade, Envoy Extraordinary 

and Minister Plenipotentiary of Venezuela to the United States of America: 

Who having communicated to each other their respective full powers, which were found to be in 

due and proper form, have agreed to and concluded the following Articles: — 

ARTICLE I 

An Arbitral Tribunal shall be immediately appointed to determine the boundary-line between the 

Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela. 

ARTICLE II 

The Tribunal shall consist of five jurists; two on the part of Great Britain, nominated by the 

members of the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council, namely, the Right Honourable 

Baron Herschell, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of Bath, and the Honourable 

Sir Richard Henn Collins, Knight, one of the Justices of Her Britannic Majesty's Supreme Court of 

the Judicature; two on the part of Venezuela, nominated, one by the President of the United States 

of Venezuela, namely, the Honourable Melville Weston Fuller, Chief Justice of the United States of 

America, and one nominated by the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, 

namely, the Honourable David Josiah Brewer, a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States 

of America; and of a fifth jurist to be selected by the four persons so nominated, or in the event of 

their failure to agree within three months from the exchange of ratification of the present Treaty, to 

be so selected by His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway. The jurist so selected shall be the 

President of the Tribunal. 

In the case of death, absence, or incapacity to serve of any of the four Arbitrators above named, 

or in the event of any such Arbitrator omitting or declining or ceasing to act as such, another jurist 

546


of repute shall be forthwith substituted in his place. If such vacancy shall occur among those 

nominated on the part of Great Britain, the substitute shall be appointed by the members for the 

time being of the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council, acting by a majority, and if 

among those nominated on the part of Venezuela, he shall be appointed by the Justices of the 

Supreme Court of the United States, acting by a majority. If such vacancy shall occur in the case of 

the fifth Arbitrator, a substitute shall be selected in the manner herein provided for with regard to 

the original appointment. 

ARTICLE III 

The Tribunal shall investigate and ascertain the extent of the territories belonging to, or that 

might lawfully be claimed by the United Netherlands or by the Kingdom of Spain respectively at the 

time of the acquisition by Great Britain of the Colony of British Guiana, and shall determine the 

boundary-line between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela. 

ARTICLE IV 

In deciding the matters submitted, the Arbitrators shall ascertain all facts which they deem 

necessary to the decision of the controversy, and shall be governed by the following Rules, which 

are agreed upon by the High Contracting Parties as Rules to be taken as applicable to the case, and 

by such principles of international law not inconsistent therewith as the Arbitrators shall determine 

to be applicable to the case— 

RULES 

(a) Adverse holding or prescription during a period of fifty years shall make a good title. The 

Arbitrators may deem exclusive political control of a district, as well as actual settlement thereof, 


(b) The Arbitrators may recognise and give effect to rights and claims resting on any other 

ground whatever valid according to international law, and on any principles of international law 

which the Arbitrators may deem to be applicable to the case, and which are not in contravention of 

the foregoing rule. 

(c) In determining the boundary-line, if territory of one Party be found by the Tribunal to have 

been at the date of this Treaty in the occupation of the subjects or citizens of the other Party, such 

effect shall be given to such occupation as reason, justice, the principles of international law, and the 

equities of the case shall, in the opinion of the Tribunal, require. 

ARTICLE V 

The Arbitrators shall meet at Paris, within sixty days after the delivery of the printed arguments 

mentioned in Article VIII, and shall proceed impartially and carefully to examine and decide the 

questions that have been, or shall be, laid before them, as herein provided, on the part of the 

Governments of Her Britannic Majesty and the United States of Venezuela respectively. 

Provided always that the Arbitrators may, if they shall think fit, hold their meetings, or any of 

them, at any other place which they may determine. 

547

1897 – 1898 

All questions considered by the Tribunal, including the final decision, shall be determined by a 

majority of all the Arbitrators. 

Each of the High Contracting Parties shall name one person as its Agent to attend the Tribunal, 

and to represent it generally in all matters connected with the Tribunal. 

ARTICLE VI 

The printed Case of each of the two Parties accompanied by the documents, the official 

correspondence, and other evidence on which each relies, shall be delivered in duplicate to each of 

the Arbitrators and to the Agent of the other Party as soon as may be after the appointment of the 

members of the Tribunal, but within a period not exceeding eight months from the date of the 

exchange of the ratifications of this Treaty. 

ARTICLE VII 

Within four months after the delivery on both sides of the printed Case, either Party may in like 

manner deliver in duplicate to each of the said Arbitrators, and to the Agent of the other Party, a 

Counter-Case, and additional documents, correspondence, and evidence, in reply to the Case, 

documents, correspondence, and evidence of the other Party. 

If in the Case submitted to the Arbitrators either Party shall have specified or alluded to any 

report or document in its own exclusive possession, without annexing a copy, such Party shall be 

bound, if the other Party thinks proper to apply for it, to furnish that Party with a copy thereof, and 

either Party may call upon the other , through the Arbitrators, to produce the originals or certified 

copies of any papers adduced as evidence, giving in each instance notice thereof within thirty days 

after delivery of the Case, and the original or copy so requested shall be delivered as soon as may be, 

and within a period not exceeding forty days after receipt of notice. 

ARTICLE VIII 

It shall be the duty of the Agent of each Party, within three months after the expiration of the 

time limited for the delivery of the Counter-Case on both sides, to deliver in duplicate to each of the 

said Arbitrators, and to the Agent of the other party, a printed argument showing the points, and 

referring to the evidence upon which his Government relies, and either party may also support the 

same before the Arbitrators by oral argument of Counsel; and the Arbitrators may, if they desire 

further elucidation with regard to any point, require a written or printed statement or argument, or 

oral argument by Counsel upon it; but in such case the other party shall be entitled to reply either 

orally or in writing, as the case may be. 

ARTICLE IX 

The Arbitrators may, for any cause deemed by them sufficient, enlarge either of the periods 

fixed in Articles VI, VII and VIII by the allowance of thirty days additional. 

ARTICLE X 

548


The decision of the Tribunal shall, if possible, be made within three months from the close of 

the argument on both sides. 

It shall be made in writing and dated, and shall be signed by the Arbitrators who may assent to 

it. 

The decision shall be in duplicate, one copy thereof shall be delivered to the Agent of Great 

Britain for his Government, and the other copy shall be delivered to the Agent of the United States 

of Venezuela for his Government. 

ARTICLE XI 

The Arbitrators shall keep an accurate record of their proceedings, and may employ the 

necessary officers to assist them. 

ARTICLE XII 

Each Government shall pay its own Agent and provide for the proper remuneration of the 

Counsel appointed by it, and of the Arbitrators appointed by it or in its behalf, and for the expense 

of preparing and submitting its Case to the Tribunal. All other expenses connected with the 

Arbitration shall be defrayed by the two Governments in equal moieties. 

ARTICLE XIII 

The High Contracting Parties engage to consider the result of the proceeds of the Tribunal of 

Arbitration as a full, perfect, and final settlement of all the questions referred to the Arbitrators. 

ARTICLE XIV 

The present Treaty shall be duly ratified by Her Britannic Majesty and by the President of the 

United States of Venezuela, by and with the Congress thereof, and the ratifications shall be 

exchanged in London or in Washington within six months from the date hereof. 

In faith whereof, we, the respective Plenipotentiaries, have signed this Treaty and have hereunto 

affixed our seals. 

Done in duplicate, at Washington, the second day of February, one thousand eight hundred and 

ninety-seven. 


JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE (Seal) 

JOSÉ ANDRADE (Seal) 

549

1897 – 1898 

- 399 - 

A PAGE OF HISTORY 

“It was intended to apply to every stage of our National life, and cannot become obsolete while 

our Republic endures.” So wrote President Cleveland of the Monroe doctrine in his Venezuela 

message of Dec. 17, 1895. 

“It Is impossible to admit that the [the principles of the Monroe doctrine] have been inscribed 

by any adequate authority in the code of international law,” wrote Lord Salisbury in his letter of 

Nov. 26, 1895, to Sir Julian Pauncefote, “and the danger which such admission would involve is 

sufficiently exhibited by the strange development which the doctrine has received in Mr. Olney’s 

hands.” 

“Great Britain’s assertion of title to the disputed territory,” said Mr. Olney in his letter of July 20, 

1895, to Mr. Bayard, “combined with her refusal to have that title investigated, being a substantial 

appropriation of that territory to her own use, not to protest and give warning that the transaction 

will be regarded as injurious to the interests of the people of the United States, as well as oppressive 

in itself, would be to ignore an established policy with which the honor and welfare of this country 

are closely identified.” 

“But they [her Majesty’s Government cannot consent to entertain or to submit to the arbitration 

of another power or of foreign jurists, however eminent, claims based on the extravagant 

pretensions of Spanish officials in the last century,” rewrote Lord Salisbury to Sir Julian Pauncefote 

in his second letter, of Nov. 26. 

Nevertheless, Article I of the treaty signed by Sir Julian and Señor Andrade in the office of 

Secretary Olney on Tuesday declares that “an arbitral tribunal shall he immediately appointed to 

determine the boundary line between the colony of British Guiana and the United States of 

Venezuela”; and in Article XIII the high contracting parties “engage to consider the result of the 

proceedings of the Tribunal of Arbitration as a full, perfect, and final settlement of all the questions 

referred to the arbitrators.” 

And so a just case triumphs. Sustained with firmness and with reason on the part of President 

Cleveland and Secretary Olney, it was considered with candor by Lord Salisbury and the law officers 

of the Crown who were his advisers, and decided in a spirit of fairness that does honor to the 

English people. It is an important and valuable page of history, equally creditable to the two great 

nations that have written it. 

The tribunal named in this treaty, Baron Herschell and Sir Ricard Henn Collins on the part of 

Great Britain and on the part of Venezuela Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Brewer of the United 

States Supreme Court, together with a fifth jurist to be chosen by these four, will have before them 

the task of ascertaining how much of the disputed territory belonged to, “or might lawfully be 

claimed” respectively by, Spain and Holland at the time Great Britain “took title” from the Dutch. 

Judge Charles P. Daly, President of the American Geographical Society, in a careful review of the 

testimony of the maps and authorities a year ago, declared that it would be difficult if not impossible 

to determine “the true divisional line,” but that a board of arbitration might draw “what, in view of 

all the circumstances, would be a fair line of separation or boundary.” The evidence collected by our 

Venezuela Commission will of course be put at the disposal of the tribunal, now that the necessity 

of pursuing its own investigations has terminated. 

550


It is interesting to observe the care with which the treaty provides that copies of all reports and 

documents in the exclusive possession of either party shall be delivered to the other party on 

demand. This forethought is likely to avert any such “battle of the maps” as ensued upon the 

negotiation of the Ashburton treaty, when Webster’s map, found in Paris, supporting the English 

claim, and the old map, found In the Foreign Office, authenticated by the hand-writing of George 

III, sustaining our contention, were made the subject of such bitterness and suspicion. 

The only part of the treaty that is now likely to occasion serious anxiety is “Rule A,” which 

awards title by prescription to any part of the disputed territory on proof of adverse holding for fifty 

years. This rule is made applicable not only to private rights, but to the political control of a district, 

even without actual settlement. We may be sure that Great Britain’s case will be fortified with more 

abundant proofs under this rule than the case of Venezuela, as her citizens are more likely not only 

to have pushed into the disputed territory, but also to have preserved the tangible records of their 

occupancy. 


- 400 - 

WHITE HOUSE PRESENTATION 

Venezuelans Send Gifts to President Cleveland and Secretary Olney 

as a Token of Appreciation 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 5.—The Red Parlor of the White House was the scene to-day of a 

presentation by Mr. Andrade, the Venezuelan Minister, to President Cleveland and Secretary Olney, 

of a testimonial from the Governor and people of the Venezuelan State of Zulia, in token of their 

appreciation of the efforts made by the President and Mr. Olney to bring about a peaceable 

settlement of the British Guiana boundary dispute. 

The testimonial consisted of a rosette and cane, each formed of specimens of precious woods 

from the Zulian forests. The cane contained 125 pieces and the rosette 172 pieces. 

It is probable that the presents will be placed in the State Department Library. The President and 

the Secretary of State could not accept them as personal gifts without the consent of Congress. 


- 401 - 

VENEZUELA TREATY SAFE 

Assurances from Caracas that It Will Be Ratified 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 13.—Satisfactory assurances have just been received from Caracas here 

that the Venezuelan boundary treaty will be ratified promptly. 

The Government is in a position to assert this confidently after the careful canvass that has been 

made among its supporters. The opposition is declared to be confined to an insignificant minority, 

551

1897 – 1898 

which has weakened instead of gaining strength as a result of its efforts to upset the work of the 

negotiators. 


- 402 - 


It Probably Will Be Ratified at Caracas Next Week 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 19.—The Venezuelan Congress will meet at Caracas to-morrow when it 

is expected President Crespo’s message will strongly urge the prompt ratification of the Guiana 

boundary arbitration treaty. It is thought at the Legation here that this treaty will take the precedence 

over all other matters, and the impression is that decisive action will be secured next week. No 

doubt whatever is expressed that the agreement will be approved without modification, and that the 

necessary executive steps soon will be taken to give effect to its provisions. 

It is definitely announced that the tribunal of arbitration will not meet in Paris to consider 

evidence before the Summer of 1898, as all the intervening time will be required for the completion 

of evidence and the presentation of arguments. The time of meeting must be arranged to meet the 

convenience of Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Brewer, who consented to serve an the board only 

on the assurance that the sessions should be held during the long vacations of the United States 

Supreme Court. 


- 403 - 


An Obstacle to Its Prompt Ratification in Its Language 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 25.—An obstacle to the prompt ratification of the Anglo-Venezuelan 

arbitration treaty has been encountered in a provision of the Venezuelan Constitution necessitating 

the use of the Spanish language in documents for consideration of the Congress. When the 

convention was concluded, Feb. 2, both the copies signed by the plenipotentiaries were in the 

English language, this being deemed advisable, as the proceedings of the tribunal would be 

conducted in that tongue. This departure from the customary rule of having treaties in the languages 

of the countries participating has led to a delay that will in all probability postpone the exchange of 

ratifications for some time, though it was thought every precaution had been taken to secure the 

approval of the Venezuelan Congress to the agreement before March 4. 

With a view of expeditiously remedying the difficulty, a translation of the document has been 

hurriedly but carefully made, and sent to England for Lord Salisbury’s formal approval, Sir Julian 

Pauncefote hesitating to assume so great a responsibility alone, and a duplicate was forwarded to 

Caracas to- day by mail. If corrections are required by the British Foreign Office they will be cabled 

552


here and repeated to Caracas by the same method, but in any event it is thought unlikely that 

President Crespo will be able to lay the treaty before Congress for at least another week, and fears 

are expressed that the delay will be of much longer duration, on account of the exceeding precision 

required in rendering Article 4 of the treaty, which includes the memorandum of rules governing the 

arbitration agreed upon by Secretary Olney and Sir Julian Pauncefote, Nov. 12 last. This 

memorandum, constituting the gist of the entire settlement, while perfectly clear in the English 

idiom, loses some of its exactness in Spanish. 

The belief is expressed, however, that Venezuela will not be able before the tribunal to dispute 

the English version. 


- 404 - 

VENEZUELAN TREATY SIGNED 

The Spanish Draft Accepted by Andrade and Pauncefote 

— Report of the United States Commission Made to President 

WASHINGTON Feb. 27.—At the British Embassy at noon to-day the Spanish draft of the 

Anglo-Venezuelan treaty was signed by Sir Julian Pauncefote and Señor Andrade, and that 

document is finally ready for submission to the Venezuelan Congress, conforming to the 

Constitutional provision of being in the language of that country. 

Not until this morning did Sir Julian receive Lord Salisbury’s cabled authority to sign the 

translated copy, and upon being notified, Señor Andrade waived all the formalities of going to 

neutral ground at the State Department, and, accompanied by Secretary Ponte at his legation, at 

once drove to the British Embassy, where the signatures and seals were affixed. 

Lord Salisbury suggested no change in the document, and, after signing it, Señor Andrade cabled 

his Government at Caracas of the successful conclusion of the negotiations. 

The Venezuelan Commission terminated its existence to-day at noon, when its members, Justice 

Brewer. Frederic H. Coudert and Andrew D. White, Justice Alvey, and President Oilman, 

accompanied by Secretary Mallet-Prevost, called on the President and delivered its report on the 

work accomplished in the year of its existence. 

While the report does not indicate any conclusion as to the merits of the controversy which led 

to the appointment of the commission, its work having stopped before the actual “determination of 

a true divisional line between British Guiana arid Venezuela” had actually been undertaken, it is 

understood that the enormous mass of evidence collected through the commission’s efforts will 

make the decision possible by an impartial court in future. 

This evidence, which has not yet been printed, is completely arranged for filing in the archives of 

the State Department where it will be available for the arbitral tribunal which will meet in Paris in 

1898. 

To-day’s visit to the President was brief and marked with cordial expressions of the President’s 

satisfaction. 


553

1897 – 1898 

- 405 - 

SENDS MINISTER TO ENGLAND 

Diplomatic Relations Between Great Britain and Venezuela Resumed 

WASHINGTON, March 2.—Secretary Olney received the following dispatch from our Minister 

at Caracas this afternoon: 

“Venezuela has appointed Minister to England Dr. Juan Pietrie, who is now in Europe as 

Venezuelan Minister to Germany and Spain.” 

This act is a practical resumption of diplomatic relations between Great Britain and Venezuela. 

[3 March 1897] 

- 406 - 

THE VENEZUELA REPORT 

The report of the Venezuela Commission is not only the record of a piece of public work which 

has been most faithfully performed. It has the curious fate of having been rendered quite useless for 

its original purpose by the progress of events, and yet of serving even a more important purpose and 

of having a value beyond that which was expected of it. 

For the original purpose of the appointment of the commission was to inform our Government 

whether the facts of the Venezuelan boundary disputed warranted our interference in that dispute. 

Venezuela had maintained that a European power was attempting to extend its political system 

beyond the bounds of its existing colonies or dependencies. For more than seventy years it had been 

our avowed policy to resist such an extension on the part of any European power. In this case we 

had urged Great Britain to submit the dispute with Venezuela to an impartial tribunal of arbitration, 

and Great Britain had declined to do so. It therefore became necessary for us to know the merits of 

the case for our own guidance, and it was for that purpose that the commission was appointed. 

But before the commission had concluded its labors it became evident that we had no need of it. 

In the interval Great Britain had consented to our original proposition to submit her claim to 

arbitration. In the result of the arbitration we were bound beforehand to acquiesce, as were both the 

contending parties. But before this conclusion was reached the United States commission had 

collected all the information extant that bore upon the question at issue and had established that the 

question is one in which neither party can sustain its whole contention, and is therefore eminently 

one to be settled by arbitration. The commission is therefore fully justified in saying that its own 

work, while it has been terminated by the treaty of arbitration, “has been a factor of no 

inconsiderable importance in the solution of the problem.” Moreover, it has collected for the use, as 

it turns out, of another tribunal all the evidence in the case, and has collected it and presented it with 

complete impartiality. There is no need either or duplicating or of verifying its investigations. Its 

report will necessarily “impose itself” upon the tribunal of arbitration. The commission has, in 

effect, done the work of the tribunal for it in advance, and in this way has rendered even a more 

important service than it was appointed to render to the cause of justice and the cause of peace. 

554


[3 March 1897] 

- 407 - 


President Crespo’s Message to Congress Regarding the Document Received Here. 

THIS NATION GREATLY PRAISED 

It Is Believed that the Treaty Will Be Ratified by an Almost 

Unanimous Vote—The Proceedings Which Will Follow 

WASHINGTON, March 11.—The State Department to-day received a copy of President 

Crespo’s message to the Venezuelan Congress, Feb. 20, sent by the American Minister at Caracas, in 

which he discusses the Venezuelan arbitration treaty at considerable length. He says in part: 

“The Department of Foreign Affairs has given during the past year particular attention to the 

boundary question of British Guiana, a question of absorbing interest ever since his Excellency, Mr. 

Cleveland, demonstrated to the world the way in which the United States intended to exercise the 

intervention solicited by Venezuela. After this the dispute assumed a most favorable aspect.” 

He narrates in detail the course taken by the United States in establishing the Venezuelan 

Commission, and the voluminous proof which Venezuela submitted to that body in support of its 

rights to the disputed territory, and continues: 

“While the Venezuelan Government, through the patriotic and earnest efforts of its Foreign 

Office, was presenting and urging its rights before the Boundary Commission, the State Department 

at Washington, with laudable efforts, was endeavoring to secure arbitration from the British 

Ministry, in order to adjust with greater facility and success this unpleasant dispute of almost a 

century. The first official knowledge the Executive power had of the means employed to induce our 

powerful adversary to accept arbitration unreservedly and unconditionally, for which Venezuela had 

always contended, was derived from the publication of the correspondence between the 

Governments at Washington and London from February to June of the past year, and which, being 

so favorable to this republic, was sent here to be translated into Spanish and printed. Latterly this 

Government, through its Legation at Washington, was consulted as to a point in relation to those 

negotiations for arbitration. The reply of the Venezuelan Minister of Foreign Affairs, with an 

opinion contrary to that which was seemingly suggested on this point, arrived in Washington at the 

time when the answers from Great Britain were expected as to the determinate points of the 

arbitration.” 

This Government’s Efforts 

. 

“At this juncture the Government was informed that on the 12th of November there had been 

signed in Washington by his Excellency Mr. Olney, Secretary of State of the United States, and Sir 

Julian Pauncefote, Ambassador of Her Britannic Majesty in Washington, a protocol with the 

essential bases for a treaty between Venezuela and Great Britain, which, by means of arbitration, 

would put an end to the old dispute between the two nations. The bases were then submitted by the 

Washington Government for the consideration of this Government by means of a letter to me from 

555

1897 – 1898 

his Excellency Mr. Cleveland, in which he manifested the noble desire to see accepted a compact 

which, in his opinion, was just and advantageous. 

“The responsibilities of those who are intrusted with the administration of public affairs by the 

suffrage of the people increase and become graver when the preservation of interests closely linked 

with the National life is the subject to be dealt with. There is in the breast of the Chief Magistrate 

who has the good of the Republic at heart a struggle between the ideas of the moment and those 

born of a concern for the future. 

“To study well the former and the latter, to weight the advantages and risks of the one and the 

other without silencing the dictates of conscience and reason, such are the duties, truly arduous, of 

the ruler during whose term of office has chanced to fall the settlement of an affair which, like that 

of the Guiana boundary question, has been growing graver—a struggle without a truce and full of 

lamentable incidents to the party weak to material defenses. Public opinion, to which the governing 

power must always listen, especially when the territorial integrity is the subject of discussion, 

manifested itself so divided as to the bases proposed to Venezuela that it would have been in vain 

for the most expert observer to have deduced from such adversity of opinions any expression of the 

public sentiment. 

“The Government, in forming its opinion, should naturally take into consideration the 

conditions under which the protocol was signed and presented. One of the signers was the Secretary 

of State of the Nation which, fully alive to the grave consequences of its action, generously 

interposed in this dispute, seeking an arrangement which would at once preserve the laws of the 

National decorum and the continental integrity. The recourse to arbitration offered itself, and, 

although by no means in the manner wished for by Venezuela, was more consonant than any other 

with the desires manifested. 

“The Government deemed it proper to insert in the treaty a provision that Venezuela should 

have a voice in the naming of the arbitral tribunal. As soon as this change was proposed its 

acceptance was procured. The action of the United States had produced a result the after effects or 

which were, from a moral point of view, indispensably subject to the effective and powerful prestige 

of said Nation.” 

Speedy Action Asked For 

“The plan of settlement was presented for the consideration of Venezuela, with no proposition 

for co-operative participation, contrary to the sovereignty and independence of the republic; further, 

as the United States had conducted the negotiations according to their judgment alone, the definite 

acceptance of the bases will always involve for them a sort of friendly responsibility which will be in 

every case a guarantee of future harmony between the two nations represented by the arbitral 

tribunal. 

“It is eminently just to recognize the fact that the great Republic has strenuously endeavored to 

conduct this matter in the most favorable way, and the result obtained represents an effort of 

intelligence and good will worthy of praise and thanks from us who are so intimately acquainted 

with the conditions of this most complicated question. 

“It is your duty, according to the constitutional law of the republic, to examine the treaty which 

the Venezuelan Minister Plenipotentiary signed in accordance with the bases referred to and the 

change proposed by the executive power in regard to the formation of the arbitral tribunal. And as 

this is an affair of such importance involving as it does such sacred interests, I beg you that from the 

556


moment it is presented for your consideration you will postpone all other business until you shall 

decide upon it.” 

An unsigned copy of the Venezuelan boundary treaty was sent to Caracas for the information of 

the Ministry a fortnight ago. A Spanish translation of the treaty, signed by Sir Julian Pauncefote and 

Señor Andrade, was mailed on the 7th inst., and will reach Caracas on Saturday of this week. It will 

be laid by President Crespo before the Venezuelan Senate on Monday next. Under the rules of the 

Venezuelan Congress, all bills and treaties are discussed on alternate days for a period of six days, in 

order that members who were absent on the first day may have an opportunity of participating in 

the debates, while the Senate generally may have the additional time in which to consider and digest 

the matter under discussion. The treaty will thus reach a vote on Saturday, the 20th inst. 

Approval of the Treaty Undoubted 

All the advices from Caracas indicate its approval by the Senate by a practically unanimous vote. 

The opposition papers in Caracas still criticise certain provisions of the treaty, but maintain that, 

notwithstanding these objections, it ought to receive the approval of the Senate. 

After the treaty has had a similar approval from the British Parliament, ratifications will be 

exchanged in Washington between Sir Julian and Señor Andrade. Within the three months following 

this exchange, the tribunal of arbitration will endeavor to select the fifth member of the board, 

failing in which the appointment will be made by King Oscar of Sweden. The evidence will then be 

submitted to the arbitrators and the five members will not come together until next Summer a year, 

when they will meet in Paris prepared to settle the points at issue. 

‘Meanwhile, diplomatic relations between Great Britain and Venezuela, which have been 

suspended for a term of years, will be renewed. Mr. Pietra, who is now a general diplomatic 

representative in Europe for Venezuela, will receive such enlarged powers for the time being as will 

enable him to represent his country in Great Britain. Until Mr. Pietra shall present himself at 

London, announcing the desire of his country to resume diplomatic relations, no appointment will 

be made by Great Britain, inasmuch as Venezuela was the first to sever these relations, and the 

request for the renewal must first come from her. 

[12 March 1897] 

- 408 - 

GUIANA BOUNDARY TREATY 

Minister Andrade Expects Ratification in Venezuela This Week 

WASHINGTON. April 6.—Although he has no official advices on the subject, Minister 

Andrade expects that the Guiana boundary arbitration treaty will be ratified by the Venezuelan 

Congress and signed by the President this week. After its ratification by Venezuela, the British 

Government will formally approve it, and then ratifications will be exchanged either at Washington 

or London. 

The active resumption of diplomatic relations between the two Governments, which have been 

suspended for some time, is expected to promptly follow the ratification. 

557

1897 – 1898 

[7 April 1897] 

- 409 - 

VENEZUELAN TREATY RATIFIED 

Minister Thomas Sends the News to Washington 

WASHINGTON, April 7.—Confirmation of the reported ratification by the Venezuelan 

Congress of the arbitration treaty has come to the State Department from United States Minister 

Thomas at Caracas, the Venezuelan capital. He sent the following cablegram, dated yesterday: 

“Treaty was ratified by Congress yesterday.” 

[8 April 1897] 

- 410 - 

JAMES J. STORROW DEAD 

Boston Lawyer Who Was Counsel for Venezuela in the Arbitration Proceedings 

WASHINGTON, April 15.—Judge James J. Storrow, a lawyer of Boston dropped dead to-day 

in the Congressional Library. 

Judge Storrow took an important part in the proceedings incident to the arbitration treaty 

between the Governments of Great Britain and Venezuela for the settlement of the boundary line 

dispute. 

He was appointed special counsel by the Venezuelan Government to represent it, and his brief 

was considered one of the clearest and best presentations on the boundary question that was 

prepared. After Minister Andrade and Sir Julian Pauncefote had agreed on the terms of a treaty, Mr. 

Storrow accompanied the former to Venezuela, when the treaty was presented to the President of 

that country. He returned to the United States with Mr. Andrade, and since then spent most of his 

time in Washington. 

He appeared to be in good health, and his sudden death was a great shock to his friends. 

[16 April 1897] 

- 411 - 

COURCEL AS ARBITRATOR 

Probability that the French Jurist and Diplomat Will Be Chosen in the Venezuelan Case 

THE COURT TO SIT IN 1898 

Little Doubt that the Four Arbitrators Will Agree upon Baron Courcel, 

in Which Event King Oscar Will Not Be Called On 

558


WASHINGTON, April 18.—The name of Baron Courcel, the eminent French jurist and 

diplomat, at present French Ambassador to Great Britain, probably will be chosen as the fifth, or 

final, arbitrator in the court of arbitration between Venezuela and Great Britain. The treaty of 

arbitration recently ratified by these two Governments provides that the fifth arbitrator shall be 

chosen by the four designated to represent the two countries, and in the event of their inability to 

agree on a fifth, then King Oscar of Norway and Sweden is to name the final arbitrator. There 

appears to be little doubt, however, that the four arbitrators will reach an agreement, and with this 

end in view, semi-official inquiries have been made as to the availability of Baron Courcel. His 

choice would add another notable name to a court which promises to be remarkable for the 

personnel of its members, who thus far are Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Brewer, in behalf of 

Venezuela, and Baron Herschell and Sir Richard Henn Collins in behalf of Great Britain. 

The court will meet in Paris in the Summer or 898, the preceding time being required for the 

exchange of pleadings In the meantime, and within three months of the exchange of ratifications, 

the final arbitrator must be chosen. As the treaty is ratified by both Governments, the formal 

exchange of ratifications will follow at an early day, either in Washington or London, and 

negotiations toward naming the fifth arbitrator will immediately follow in order that an agreement 

may be reached within the three months prescribed by the treaty. 

Up to the time of his sudden death a few days ago, Mr. James S. Storrow, chief counsel for 

Venezuela, had made careful inquiry as to the availability of Baron Courcel as the fifth arbitrator. 

The abilities of the French diplomat were regarded as eminently fitting him for the place. It was felt, 

however, that as France had a boundary dispute with Brazil involving the same points as the 

Venezuela-British case, Baron Courcel might have fixed convictions concerning the issue involved. 

Mr. Storrow conferred with the French Embassy in Washington, and the general conclusion reached 

was that Baron Courcel could have no prejudices by reason of the Franco-Brazilian boundary 

contest, which also has been submitted to arbitration by a treaty just signed. 

Baron Courcel is one of the foremost jurists of Europe, and as such was chosen as President of 

the court of arbitration between the United States and Great Britain on the Bering Sea question. He 

comes from one of the old Royalist families of the empire, but is a sturdy Republican, and has taken 

front rank among French leaders. It was during the strained condition of European affairs a year 

ago, requiring skillful diplomacy, that France availed herself of his services as Ambassador to Great 

Britain. He speaks English fluently, which would materially aid in a court made up of Englishspeaking 

arbitrators. 

[18 April 1897] 

- 412 - 

VENEZUELA BOUNDARY TREATY 

Final Ratification Exchanged Between England and Venezuela 

at Washington Yesterday 

WASHINGTON, June 14.—The final ratification of the boundary treaty between Great Britain 

and Venezuela was exchanged at the State Department at 3 o’clock this afternoon. 

559

1897 – 1898 

Because this exchange of ratifications marked the closing chapter in the negotiations begun in 

the last and deciding phase, almost two years ago, the occasion was marked with some formality. 

There were present in the diplomatic room of the State Department Sir Julian Pauncefote, Señor 

Andrade, the Venezuelan Minister, and his Secretary of Legation; Acting Secretary of State William 

R. Day, and Assistant Secretary Thomas W. Cridler, who has been instrumental in framing the 

various treaties, protocols, and other writings connected with the treaty. 

What remained to be done to-day was to exchange the copies of the treaties held by each party 

and to sign what is known as the exchange protocols. For this purpose Señor Andrade brought 

along the same magnificent golden penholder, with its eagle quill and diamond-studded heart, that 

had been used last February to sign the original drafts of the treaties. This pen is the property of the 

brother of the Minister, and was made for this particular purpose. It will be sent to Venezuela now 

that it has fulfilled its functions, not to be used again, but to he preserved as a relic. 

When the signing was over and each of the parties held the exchange copies of the treaties, there 

was a mutual exchange of congratulations, and Mr. Cridler was thanked for the pains he had taken 

to prepare all of the documents for the occasion. 

The treaty now becomes binding upon both Governments, Great Britain, and Venezuela and 

they must at once begin the preparation of the eases to be submitted to the arbitrators, who will 

meet in Paris for organization, probably some time next Winter. 

With to-day’s ceremony, the connection of the United States Government with the negotiations 

ceases, and the two Governments will be left to work out the boundary dispute to a conclusion, 

unless there should be some totally unexpected interruption in the workings of the machinery which 

has been so carefully prepared to insure a settlement of this celebrated cause. 

[15 June 1897] 

- 413 - 

ENGLISHMEN FIRED UPON 

Commander of Venezuelan Frontier Police Exchanges Shots with a Hunting Party 

AND IS SLIGHLY WOUNDED 

The Englishmen, by a Strategic Move, Capture Him and His Force— 

A Truce Patched Up and No International Complications Likely 

KINGSTON. Jamaica. Aug. 24.—Advices just to hand from the northwest territory of British 

Guiana tell of an attack made on an English settler and his party by the Venezuelan frontier police. 

George H. Moore is a grant holder on the English side of the Amacura River. The other day he left 

his residence with a party of Englishmen for a fishing and hunting expedition to Barima. 

When the boat got opposite to the Venezuelan outpost station at the mouth of the Amacura, the 

party were hailed by the garrison and informed that they would not be allowed to proceed. Mr. 

Moore asked why, on what grounds, and by what authority? 

No answer was given, and thereupon the boat which had been puffed up at the challenge, hauled 

its wind and proceeded outward. On seeing this Col. Castania, the officer in command of the station 

ran out on the shore flourishing a rifle and yelling that be would shoot if the boat did not run in. 

560


Not believing that the officer could be in earnest Mr. Moore made a derisive reply, whereupon 

Castania opened fire. By the time he had got two shots Moore and his friends were answering, and 

Castania was hit in the leg. The wound was a very slight one, but it stopped him, and he hobbled 

into the station. 

Meanwhile the soldiers of the guard were seen to be busy with a gun that stood on a little 

eminence and commanded the mouth of the river. To get out of range Moore had to run his boat 

right in under the gun. Seeing this the Venezuelans supposed that the Englishmen were going to 

surrender, and ran down to meet them. 

But Moore and his friends were by this time in a fine rage and up to mischief. The opportunity 

was too good to be lost. At the first sign of fight the whole garrison of six men had run out off the 

station to man the gun, leaving their arms in the building. When the boat grounded within a few 

yards of the station door, the garrison were still some twenty yards oft, and there was only Castania 

in the station nursing his wounded leg. 

Apparently Castania bad not seen the boat coming in. At any rate before he knew what hit him 

Moore and his three companions were in the station and had him down, and by the time the 

garrison were on hand they found four rifles covering them. 

Castania threatened the Englishmen with instant death and destruction, calling on his men to 

shoot down the “gringoes.” But unfortunately, the “gringoes” were between the men and their arms, 

thus being completely masters of the situation. 

Eventually a truce was patched up, and the party of Englishmen left their disconcerted assailants 

cowed, but in no amiable mood. The incident was at once reported to the colonial authorities at 

Georgetown, but it appears that sooner than interrupt the present friendly conditions of diplomatic 

negotiations, no action has been taken in the matter. The Venezuelan Government is reported to 

have recalled Castania from the frontier, but it is not known what has been done with him. 

The strangest part of the matter is, that since this incident the Colonial Government has 

stringently enforced in the whole frontier region the regulations against citizens carrying arms of any 

sort, and the police have accordingly disarmed the settlers. This action has created great 

dissatisfaction, and a petition is to he sent to the Governor embodying a protest and threatening to 

abandon the territory if the means of self-defense on emergencies are not restored or an adequate 

protective police force provided. 

[31 August 1897] 

- 414 - 

THE VENEZUELA BOUNDARY COMMISSION 

The Venezuela Boundary Commission was less than a year in existence, having been appointed 

Jan. 1, 1896, and notified by Secretary of State Olney on Dec. 28 of the same year, with the 

assurance of the highest appreciation by the President of “the diligence, skill, and effectiveness” with 

which its labors had been conducted, that there was no further occasion for the prosecution of those 

labors. 

In closing up its work, the commission put in permanent, convenient, and useful form the 

results of its labors – results declared by Secretary Olney to be “of great and permanent value to the 

561

1897 – 1898 

peoples of the three countries concerned” in the controversy about the Venezuela-Guyana boundary 

that led to its appointment. The commission made a closing report to President Cleveland on Feb. 7 

of this year; but that report conveyed to those who read it no information or opinion to show that 

the Commissioners had been absolutely convinced for one side or the other. Indeed, the 

Commissioners carefully avoided saying more than that “there is no such absolute certainty of right 

on the part of either [Venezuela or Guiana] as to justify a more forcible assertion thereof.” 

Great Britain had maintained very positive language about this boundary dispute until the 

American commission began its work. This may have come to be the case because it was assumed 

that the controversy would never be pressed as it was after President Cleveland’s startling message 

of 1895. But the British examination, or re-examination, of the case seems to have been taken up at 

the same time that our Commissioners took it up; presumably their examiners became acquainted 

with the same history that was looked up, verified, compared and sifted by our Commissioners, and 

the British assent to have the question between Great Britain and Venezuela submitted to arbitration 

justifies the conclusion that the British examiners were convinced, quite as early as the American 

Commissioners, that there was “no such absolute certainty of right on the part of either as to justify 

a more forcible assertion thereof.” 

The commission made a report in four: volumes, Volume I appearing last. Volumes II, III, and 

IV, presenting Prof. Burr’s quotations from the Dutch archives and documents furnished by the 

Venezuelan Government, cartographical reports and an atlas of seventy-six maps, were followed by 

the first volume, containing the report of the commission and the historical reports of Prof. T. 

Franklin Jameson and Prof. George Lincoln Burr. This historical volume of 400 pages is the most 

interesting of the four produced by the commission, and in many respects the most important, al 

though it may be assumed that the cartographical history collected contributed in some degree to 

bring about the consent of Great Britain to submit its contention to an arbitral tribunal. 

Prof. Jameson, in his report on “Spanish and Dutch Settlements Prior to 1648,” beginning with 

the history of Santo Thomé, at the head of the Orinoco delta, and examining the question of “other 

Spanish settlements,” the missions, Dutch ports, and the question of Point Barima, finds no 

evidence of any Spanish occupation of the disputed territory in 1648, nor of any but temporary 

occupation of it before that time. Nor does he find evidence of any Dutch occupation in 1648 

northward or westward of the Essequibo, nor any evidence of occupation of Point Barima before 

1648. 

Prof. Burr, whose investigations were more extended and minute than those of Prof. Jameson, 

involving laborious examination of archives, concluded, as the result of his examination of the 

meaning of Articles V and VI of the Treaty of Münster, that: “It is improbable that in the intent of 

its framers and its ratifiers, the Treaty of Münster conceded to the Dutch a right to win from the 

natives lands claimed by Spain,” and that “It does not appear that it was ever interpreted in this 

sense by either Spain or the Dutch.” 

His examination of the Dutch archives led Prof. Bunn to infer the assumption by the Dutch 

Government of a right to plant colonies in the district known as the Wild Coast; but he found 

nothing to suggest that this was counted exclusively a Dutch right; nor was there, in the grants 

examined by him, any claim of sovereignty over the coast as a whole. 

When he looked carefully through all the accessible archives he found that the earliest Dutch 

expedition to Guiana, then conceived of as a part of the Spanish Kingdom of Peru, reached that 

coast in 1598, and was formally recognized by the Dutch States General as one to a place 

theretofore unvisited by Netherlanders. The earliest date of Dutch occupation was 1613, and there 

562


was no intimation of any claim by the Dutch to Guiana as a whole, or to any part of its western 

Coast. Occupation of the Essequibo by the Dutch dates from 1625: settlement began in 1657, was 

carried on with vigor in the Essequibo and Pomeroon; trade, very primitive in its methods and 

narrow in its limits, after the middle of the eighteenth century passed from the hands of the Dutch 

to the Spanish. Generally, the testimony of the Dutch archives is that there was no exclusive claim 

by the Dutch to the Guiana coast, and that even as late as 1801-2 the delimitation of the Guiana 

boundary was in doubt. 

On the other hand, the history of the Spanish claim as to the boundary in Guiana was not clearly 

made out. There were Dutch remonstrances in 1759 and 1769, to which Spanish authorities never 

gave formal answer. Claims were once or twice implied by the Spanish authorities of the Orinoco, 

when encroachments by the Dutch were made upon the Cuyuni. But among all the claims Prof. 

Burr found none which bad the form of an official utterance or which undertook to state with 

definiteness the rightful course of a boundary. 

Enough has been given to show that there has been for many years much blind following, by 

diplomatic officers and careless historians, of misleading assertions concerning the Venezuela- 

Guiana boundary; and the turn that was given to the controversy by the United States becomes most 

satisfactory to contemplate in the light of this report, which will doubtless be a new light to the 

arbitral tribunal that is to settle the boundary for Great Britain and Venezuela. 


- 415 - 

BRITISH-VENEZUELA UMPIRE 

Fifth Arbitrator Chosen Without King Oscar’s Assistance 

WASHINGTON, Sept. 24.—A final decision has been reached by the arbitrators who are to 

determine the British-Venezuela boundary line, as to the fifth arbitrator, or umpire, who is to act 

with them. His name is for the present withheld. It is not Baron Courcel, whose name has been 

mentioned in this connection, nor King Oscar of Sweden, who was to name the umpire only in case 

the arbitrators failed to agree. 

An agreement was reached without the necessity of calling on the Swedish sovereign. The 

umpire is a European, but this is said to without significance, since no question involving the 

Monroe doctrine is to be submitted to the tribunal. The arbitrators In behalf of Venezuela are Chief 

Justice Fuller and Justice Brewer of the United States Supreme Court. 


- 416 - 

ARBITRATION AND VENEZUELA 

England Will Continue the Old Negotiations—Signor Andrade to Go to London 

563

1897 – 1898 

From The London Standard 

A correspondent says: “I have reason to state that neither the State Department at Washington 

nor Sir Sultan Pauncefote, British Ambassador now on leave, has received any instructions to reopen 

negotiations on the question of general arbitration between Great Britain and the United States, for 

the very reason that there is no need for instructions, and that the United States and Great Britain 

have never actually broken off the arbitration negotiations, which have only been delayed on 

account of the necessity of passing the Tariff bill. The arbitration negotiations will be continued next 

month in the most friendly manner, when Sir Julian Pauncefote returns to his post at Washington, 

and may state that on this side of the Atlantic In diplomatic circles there is a great desire to come to 

a settlement with a fair recognition of each country’s claims. Sir Julian Pauncefote had interviews 

yesterday with the permanent officials of the Foreign Office in Downing Street, mainly for the 

purpose of knowing when it would be absolutely necessary for him to return to his post, which 

practically depends upon the date when the special Commissioners for England and the United 

States—Mr. D’Arcy Thomson (England) and Prof. Jordan (United States)—on the Bering Sea 

inquiry, return from their special inquiry in Alaska as to scaling. 

“It is believed that these officers cannot reach Washington where the negotiations are to be 

continued until late in October, when it is necessary that Sir Julian Pauncefote should be at his post, 

and his intention is that he should be at Washington when the Bering Sea Special Commissioners 

arrive, so that negotiations may not be delayed. The two experts were due in the middle of October, 

but it is now more likely they cannot return until November, in which case Sir Julian Pauncefote will 

not return to Washington until the end of October. His Excellency will, however, remain in town 

from now to the time of his departure to the States, as matters may at any moment demand his 

attention. In connection with the Venezuelan question, I am able to state that every appearance of 

negotiations is favorable. The announcement of M. Andrade’s appointment as the new President of 

Venezuela did not come in the least as a surprise. It was all along expected. He is the elder brother 

of the M. Andrade, Venezuelan Minister at Washington, who so ably carried out with Sir Julian 

Pauncefote the negotiations on the Venezuelan question. 

There is even more favorable news in that there is an almost certain possibility that Signor 

Andrade of Washington may be appointed at once permanent resident Minister to this country for 

Venezuela. It is, of course, known that the Venezuelan Minister at Berlin was accredited to this 

country at a certain time in the negotiations, but his appointment was considered temporary. M. 

Andrade, brother of the President and representative of Venezuela in America, has the whole history 

of the negotiations in re the British Guiana frontier at his fingers’ ends, and negotiations would be 

much expedited by his appointment to this country. M. Andrade is a very well read diplomatist, a 

man well informed upon every subject, and even outside this is one of the most courteous servants 

in the foreign diplomatic service. He will no doubt be a persona grata at the Court of St. James’s. 


- 417 - 

Fifth Venezuelan Arbitrator 

564


LONDON, Oct. 1.—The Daily News says this morning that the fifth Venezuelan arbitrator will 

be an international lawyer of the highest reputation, whose name will be published in the course of a 

few days if he finally accepts the post. 


- 418 - 

BRITISH-VENEZUELA BOUNDARY 

M. Maertens, the Russian Jurist, Chosen as Umpire and President 

of the Arbitration Court 

WASHINGTON, Oct 13.—The international court of arbitration which is to pass on the 

British-Venezuela boundary has been completed by the selection of M. Maertens, a distinguished 

Russian jurist, as umpire, and arrangements are being made for the assembling of the court at Paris 

during the late Summer or Fall of next year. 

In the meantime the briefs of Great Britain and of Venezuela are being prepared, but none of 

the papers has yet been submitted. M. Maertens will act not only as umpire, but also as President of 

the court. 

The announcement that a European umpire had been chosen was made in these dispatches 

some time since, but the name had been withheld until the sanction of the Czar could be secured for 

M. Maertens’s services as arbitrator. Great Britain and Venezuela each submitted a list of 

distinguished jurists who would be acceptable as umpire. These embraced some of the most noted 

men of Europe, but M. Maertens’s name was the only one on the lists of both countries. He is an 

official of the Russian Foreign Office, professor of international law at the University of St. 

Petersburg, and author of “Maertens’s Treaties,” the standard book of reference on all the treaties of 

the world. Little doubt is felt as to his acceptance. 

Prof. Maertens was one of the delegates named by the Russian Government to represent it at the 

approaching Bering Sea sealing conference in this city. It is understood that his selection as the fifth 

arbitrator and head of the commission makes at impossible for him to participate in the Washington 

conference, so that the Russian interests in the meeting probably will remain in the care of Mr. 

Botkine and the two delegates who will sit with him. 

[14 October 1897] 

- 419 - 


Documents Found in Georgetown Are Said to Confirm the British Contention 

COLONIAL ARCHIVES SEARCHED 

The Memoranda Give a Running History of the Dutch Settlement of Guiana 

During the Seventeenth Century 

565

1897 – 1898 

LONDON. Nov. 25.—A letter received here from Georgetown, British Guiana, announces that 

Great Britain’s legal experts have unearthed in the Colonial archives there a series of volumes 

containing memoranda giving a running history of the Dutch settlement of Guiana, from the middle 

to near the close of the seventeenth century, fully confirming the British boundary claims. 

The memoranda, it is added, were written or dictated by the Commander of the settlement, the 

seat of the Government being on the River Essequibo. They contain frequent references to trading 

expeditions to the Dutch depots on the Upper Cuyuni, to the Moruca, and to all the northwest 

country which the Venezuelans assert the Dutch never possessed. 

It is claimed that the discoveries clear the question and will greatly facilitate the work of the 

arbitrators. 


- 420 - 

THE VENEZUELAN DOCUMENTS 

Colonial Office Believes Them “Altogether Insignificant” 

LONDON, Nov. 27.—The newspapers were apparently too previous in crowing over the find 

of alleged important Venezuelan documents at Greytown,* which was immediately hailed as settling 

the case, and as a useful rebuff to American “meddlers in their neighbors’ concerns.” 

The Colonial Office now announces that the value of the documents is believed to be 

“altogether insignificant,” and that they will not necessitate an alteration in the statement of the 

British case, as already submitted. 


(Editor’s note: * This is obviously an error in the original report. It should be “Georgetown”.) 

- 421 - 

BRITISH-VENEZUELA BOUNDARY 

Briefs to be Ready In February, When the Arbitration Court Will Sit 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 29.—The briefs in the British-Venezuela arbitration case are expected to 

be ready the middle of February, and the preliminary work of the arbitration court will then begin. 

The Venezuelan Government has named Dr. Rojas, a prominent lawyer and diplomat, lately resident 

in Paris, as its agent before the court. With him will be associated eminent counsel, whose names 

have not yet been announced. 

It had been intended to hold the court at Paris, but the sessions ma be held at London, St. 

Petersburg, or some other convenient point. In the meantime the briefs will be forwarded to the 

President of the court, and thence distributed to the individual members. It is thought that the case 

will not be closed and a decision reached before the end of the coming year. 

566



- 422 - 

VENEZUELA BOUNDARY CASE 

British Experts Returning to England with Evidence 

CARACAS, Venezuela, Dec. 31.—A report has reached here that two legal experts who were 

commissioned by the Government of Great Britain to go to British Guiana to collect evidence in the 

boundary dispute are returning to England with many volumes of testimony bearing upon the 

question, which will simplify the work of the commission when it meets. The wonder here is that 

this testimony has not been unearthed at an earlier date. 

Francis B. Loomis, the American Minister, sailed for the United States on the last “D” Line 

steamer. It is generally understood here that his mission to Washington is in connection with the 

Guiana boundary question. It is expected that the absence of the Minister will be brief. . . 


- 423 - 

VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY REPORT 

Committee Completed Its Work and Kept Within the Appropriation 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 25.—Responding to a Senate resolution the President sent to the Senate 

to-day a statement by the Secretary of State in regard to the report of the Venezuelan boundary 

committee and also a statement by the Auditor for the State Department concerning the accounts of 

the commission. 

The Auditor states that no accounts have been received since September last, and there is now 

remaining of the $100,000 appropriated for the commission $2,205. Secretary Sherman says in his 

communication that the business of the commission has been concluded and within the limits of the 

appropriation. He also says the supply of copies of the report printed by the commission has been 

practically exhausted. The report will be reprinted for the use of the Senate. 

[26 January 1898] 

- 424 - 

Venezuela Retains Counsel 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 30.—Severo Mallet- Prevost of New York, a member of the firm of 

Curtis, Mallet-Prevost & Colt, has been retained by the Government of Venezuela as junior counsel 

567

1897 – 1898 

before the arbitration tribunal to determine the boundary line between Venezuela and British 

Guiana. 

[31 January 1898] 

- 425 - 

Venezuela Boundary Arbitration 

LONDON, Feb. 24.—In the House of Commons to-day Sydney Buxton, Radical, member for 

Poplar, (Tower Hamlets) questioned the Government as to the progress of Venezuela-Guiana 

boundary arbitration. Mr. Curzon, in reply, called attention to length of time necessary for delivering 

the cases, and said he could not promise an early settlement. 


- 426 - 

Venezuelan Boundary Cases 

WASHINGTON, March 10.—It has been arranged that the cases prepared by counsel in the 

Venezuelan boundary arbitration shall be exchanged in this city the 16th of the present month. The 

exchange will take place between Sir Julian Pauncefote and Señor Andrade, and four months later 

the counter-cases will be exchanged. 

[11 March 1898] 

- 427 - 

THE VENEZUELA ARBITRATION 

Cases Relative to the Boundary Exchanged in Washington 

WASHINGTON, March 18.—By arrangement between the parties, Sir Julian Pauncefote for 

Great Britain and Señor Andrade for Venezuela, the cases relative to the boundary arbitration 

prepared by counsel on either side have been exchanged. 

The documents will be forwarded to their respective Governments by the Ambassador and the 

Minister to serve as the basis for the counter cases to be exchanged later on, and to prepare the way 

for the arbitration commission to meet in Paris next Fall. 

[19 March 1898] 

568


- 428 - 

VENEZUELA HONORS HARRISON 

She Chooses the Ex-President as Counsel Before the Board of Arbitration 

WASHINGTON, May 21.—Ex-President Harrison has, it is learned upon high authority to-day, 

been selected by the Government of Venezuela as counsel to represent it before the Board of 

Arbitration appointed to settle the historic boundary dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela. 

[22 May 1898] 

- 429 - 

VENEZUELA’S BOUNDARY CASE 

The Tribunal to Settle the Pending Issues with Great Britain Will Assemble In Paris 

WASHINGTON. May 22.—The tribunal which is to adjust the dispute between Venezuela and 

Great Britain as to the boundary between the former country and British Guiana will assemble in 

Paris next February. The claims of both countries are now being made up. The case of Venezuela 

was laid before the members of the tribunal on March 16 last, and the counter claims of Great 

Britain will be presented on the 18th of July. 

The personnel of the tribunal was determined by the treaty of Washington in 1897, Chief Justice 

Fuller and Assistant Justice Brewer of the Supreme Court being selected by Venezuela to represent 

her interests. They and the two representatives of Great Britain have chosen, in accordance with the 

terms of the treaty, the fifth member of the tribunal in the person of M. de Mertens, the eminent 

authority on international law, and Chief Counselor of the Russian Foreign Office. 

At the sittings of the tribunal the agent of Venezuela will be Dr. José Maria de Rojas. Dr. Rojas 

will be assisted in the conduct of Venezuela’s case by ex-President Benjamin Harrison as chief 

counsel, with ex-Secretary of the Navy Benjamin F. Tracy of New York, and Mr. S. Mallet-Prevost, 

former Secretary of the Venezuelan Commission, as assistant counsel. 

[23 May 1898] 

- 430 - 

The Anglo-Venezuelan Dispute 

LONDON, Aug. 25.—Sir Robert Threshie Reid, formerly Solicitor General and Attorney 

General, has been appointed additional counsel for Great Britain in the Venezuela boundary 

arbitration. 

[26 August 1898] 

569

1897 – 1898 

- 431 - 

THE BRITISH-VENEZUELA CASE 

Arbitrators from the United States to Represent the Republic 

in Its Boundary Claims 

WASHINGTON. Sept. 24.—The approaching meeting at Paris of the British-Venezuela court 

of arbitration, of which Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Brewer are arbitrators in behalf of the 

republic, will be hardly second in importance to the meeting at Paris of the Peace Commission, 

owing to the crisis which the Venezuelan question raised between the United States and Great 

Britain during the Cleveland Administration and the extent to which the Monroe doctrine is 

involved. The present plans are for the court to hold a preliminary session in January, at which time 

Justice Brewer will go to Paris. 

But Chief Justice Fuller is not likely to go to the first meeting, as the United States Supreme 

Court will be very busy about that time, and two members of the bench cannot be spared at the 

same time. Justice Brewer, probably, will arrange for a postponement until May, at which time both 

he and the Chief Justice will be free to join the other arbitrators and take up the serious business of 

the commission. 

The case and counter cases between Great Britain and Venezuela have been completed. Minister 

Andrade of Venezuela recently submitted to the British Embassy here the counter case of the 

republic, and simultaneous with this the British counter case was handed to Dr. Rojas, the 

Venezuela agent in Paris. The papers make one of the most voluminous international controversies 

ever brought to arbitration. The British case and counter-case fill eleven large volumes, one atlas, 

and a number of detached maps, while the Venezuelan case fills six volumes and three atlases. Thus 

the court will have before it a record comprising seventeen volumes, four atlases, and some 

additional maps. 

With the record all made up, it remains only for the counsel for the two parties to submit their 

briefs. The Venezuela brief will be prepared by ex-President Harrison, ex-Senator Tracy, and Mr. 

Malet-Prevost. The British brief will be presented by the foremost lawyers of England, including Sir 

Richard Webster. 

It is expected that Mr. Harrison and Gen. Tracy will be present and make oral arguments when 

the court assembles in May. Thus the personnel of the advocates, as well as the arbitrators, will give 

unusual importance to the hearing. The British arbitrators are headed by Baron Herschel, former 

Lord Chancellor of England, and, like Chief Justice Fuller, the official head of the judiciary. 

Associated with him is Sir Richard Henn Collins. The fifth arbitrator, who occupies the attitude of 

an umpire, is the noted Russian jurist and international law writer, Maertens. The latter is acting for 

the arbitrators up to the time of their meeting, receiving the papers, briefs, etc. 


- 432 - 

AN “INVASION” OF BRAZIL 

570


How Gifts of Union Jacks Among Guiana Indians Nearly Plunged 

Great Britain Into War 

KINGSTON, Jamaica. Oct 25.— Several months ago the daily telegraphic bulletins announced 

to the world that there had been an English invasion of Brazil across the British Guiana frontier, and 

that the invaders were inciting the Brazilian Indians to revolt against the authority of the republic 

and assume allegiance to the British crown. Although there was no war on between the two nations, 

in view of the precedent of England’s assumption of sovereignty in Venezuelan territory not long 

before, the story was accepted with some degree of credence. The stir soon subsided, and nothing 

inure was heard of the matter. There was, however, some foundation for the report, the facts about 

which have only now been given out. 

The interior of Guiana is to a great extent a terra incognita. Its limits are assumed, not defined. 

British authority is represented not by the conventional machinery of a police department and 

regular stations among the Indian population, but by a Magistrate having comprehensively indefinite 

jurisdiction, whose authority is locally represented by the Indian headmen. By dint of continuous 

traveling he manages to pay annual visits to these frontier settlements, when he easily overtakes the 

year’s accumulation of civil and criminal cases, solemnizes the necessary marriages, records the 

births and deaths, and last, but not least, presides at the great annual “Paiwarri Festival” whereat he 

delivers a message from the Queen and receives the renewal of the vows of allegiance from the 

chiefs of the section. 

January of this year found Mr. Magistrate McTurk at the village of Sawarawou, on the river of 

the same name, on the Brazilian frontier. Among the presents to the headman on that occasion was 

a Union Jack—the first that had ever penetrated that region. Just why Mr. McTurk was authorized 

to distribute flags among her Majesty’s Indian vassals on the frontier this year is not stated, but this 

fact is the key to the invasion story. 

The headman (his name nowhere appears in the official note, probably for good orthographical 

reasons) at once developed an unreasoning ostentatious pride in this novel badge of office, and no 

sooner was Mr. McTurk’s back turned than he removed it from its pole and paraded it in procession 

for miles around, irrespective of political boundaries, declaring that this was the emblem of the great 

English Queens and that whoever looked upon it became her subjects and consequently under his 

immediate control. 

In the face of the bright flag no one ventured to dispute the claim; on the contrary, the Indians 

of the entire region, Brazilian as well as English, paid him homage. Like many a greater man, this 

newly acquired popularity quite turned his head. Like a certain “Little Corporal” who once 

performed on a wider stage, the humble headman assumed, and was readily accorded, truly imperial 

sway if not state, his arrogance occasioning no little trouble to the regular Brazilian traders who had 

worked the territory for generations. 

The traders duly appealed to the Brazilian authorities, interpreting the antics of the headman into 

a British invasion. Of course, the authorities in London knew no more about the alleged “invasion” 

than did those of Rio, and the Georgetown Government could throw no light on the subject. But 

the traders continued to complain, while the headman continued his usurpation of power, in blissful 

ignorance of the fact that he was setting the diplomacy of two nations by the ears. 

At length some inkling of the truth reached Georgetown, when Mr. McTurk was dispatched post 

haste to the frontier to set matters straight. But now another complication arose. By this time the 

headman began to suspect that all was not right with him, and hearing that Mr. McTurk was coming 

571

1897 – 1898 

up to depose him, he promptly sent off couriers to inform that gentleman that it would be as much 

as his life was worth to put his foot in the territory with any such hostile intent. The warriors of the 

tribes for miles around were ready to support him, and he would stand no nonsense. 

Mr. McTurk has more than once proved himself to be as brave as any average Scotchman; but, 

his heroism not being of the “penny dreadful” type, he deemed it imprudent to take the possible 

risks for so trumpery a cause, and resorted to diplomacy. He promptly camped where the message 

reached him, and thence opened negotiations with the recalcitrant chief. The latter proved obdurate 

and arrogant, and as there was no way of getting anything like an adequate force up the tortuous 

stream and through the dense forests except at an enormous cost, and it would never do to depute 

the subjection of the rebellious chief to Brazil, a compromise was decided on. This was eventually 

arranged, the headman consenting to go down to Georgetown and surrender his papers and 

precious flag on condition that immunity be guaranteed him. 

This closed the Incident, Great Britain making the necessary apologetic explanations to Brazil. 

Since then Mr. McTurk has been busily engaged making a special tour of his stations for the purpose 

of collecting the flags distributed last year, the Colonial Government fearing other possible 

complications. 


572


- Part 13 - 

1899 - 1904 

573

1899 – 1904 

574


- 433 - 

MINISTER ANDRADE RETURNS 

To Attend the Formal Meeting of the Venezuelan Commission in Paris 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 6.—Señor Andrade, the Venezuelan Minister, has returned to 

Washington from a vacation in his own country. He expects to go to Paris to attend the meeting of 

the Venezuelan Boundary Commission, Jan. 25. 

It is understood, however, that this meeting will be purely formal, for purposes of organization 

and in order to receive the briefs of the counsel on both sides. An adjournment will then be taken 

until some time in May, when, it is believed, the arguments will begin. 


- 434 - 

Venezuela Commission Meeting 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 9.—Justice Brewer will sail from New York next Wednesday for Paris to 

attend the meeting of the Venezuelan Commission, of which he and Chief Justice Fuller are 

members. 

The commission was to have met on the 25th inst., but a postponement until May 14 has been 

arranged, so that the forthcoming meeting will do nothing more than formally ratify the 

postponement already agreed upon. 

[10 January 1899] 

- 435 - 

The Venezuelan Arbitration Sessions 

LONDON, Jan. 23.—The Times says this morning: “Owing to the immense mass of documents 

put in, the Venezuelan arbitration sessions are expected to last for several months.” 

[23 January 1899] 

- 436 - 


A Preliminary Session Will Be Held at Paris To-morrow 

575

1899 – 1904 

PARIS, Jan. 23.—Councillor Maartens, Professor of International Law at the University of St. 

Petersburg, who is umpire in the Anglo-Venezuelan arbitration, arrived here on Saturday and 

promptly visited M. Delcassé, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Gen. Horace Porter, the United States 

Ambassador, and Sir Edmund J. Monson, the British Ambassador. 

Sir Edmund Monson will give an elaborate banquet to the members of the Diplomatic Corps in 

Parts on Wednesday, at which all the members of the Arbitration Commission will be present. On 

Thursday M. Delcassé will give a luncheon to the arbitrators, the United States and British 

Ambassadors, and the Venezuelan Minister. Next Monday evening Gen. Porter will give a dinner to 

the arbitrators and to the Diplomatic representatives of Great Britain and Venezuela. 

The arbitrators will hold a preliminary session on Wednesday in apartments assigned them at the 

offices of the Foreign Minister, when they will arrange as to their procedure. An adjournment will 

then be taken till the middle of April. 

[24 January 1899] 

- 437 - 


Preliminary Sitting Was Purely Form and Nothing Was Achieved 

PARIS, Jan. 25.—The preliminary sitting of the Venezuelan Court of Arbitration this morning 

was purely formal. The court met in the room which was used by the Spanish-American Peace 

Commissioners, at the Foreign Office here. 

The arbitrators only sat for half an hour. 

Sir Richard Webster, the Attorney General of Great Britain, made a brief speech, and Prof. 

Maertens, the umpire of the Anglo-Venezuelan Arbitration Commission and Professor of 

International Law at the University of St. Petersburg, replied. In so doing he thanked the French 

Government for its hospitality. The next meeting of the commission will take place on May 25. 

The arbitrators, the Russian Ambassador, Prince Ouroussoff; the British Ambassador, Sir 

Edmund J. Monson; the United States Ambassador, Gen. Horace Porter, and the high Foreign 

Office officials lunched with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Delcassé, to-day. The British 

Ambassador gave a diplomatic dinner to the party this evening, to which the arbitrators were invited. 

[26 January 1899] 

- 438 - 

Venezuelan Commission at a Dinner 

PARIS, Jan. 30.—The United States Ambassador, Gen. Horace Porter, gave a dinner this 

evening in honor of the members of the Venezuelan Arbitration Commission. The company 

included, in addition to the arbitrators, Sir Edmund J. Monson, the British Ambassador; Prince 

Ourossoff, the Russian Ambassador; Count Tornielli-Brusati di Vorgano, the Italian Ambassador; 

576


M. Delcassé, French Minister for Foreign Affairs; Col. John Jacob Astor, and Mr. George 

Vanderbilt. 

[31 January 1899] 

- 439 - 

ANGLO-VENEZUELAN TRIBUNAL 

The American Members of the Arbitration Board to Go to Paris 

—Arguments for Venezuela 

WASHINGTON, March 16.—Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Brewer of the Supreme Court will 

leave the United States for Paris so as to arrive there about May 25 next, at which time the oral 

arguments on the British-Venezuelan arbitration will be heard. The hearing is expected to cover 

three months, after which the court is expected to devote about three months to the consideration 

of the question, giving a decision probably in November. 

Ex-President Harrison and ex-Secretary of the Navy Tracy probably will go to Paris at the same 

time, as they are the leading counsel for Venezuela. Their brief has been presented, and, owing to its 

general interest copies have been distributed among Senators, Representatives, and public men 

generally in Washington. It covers about 800 printed pages, and is in rather marked contrast to the 

brevity of the British brief of Sir Richard Webster, covering only 55 pages. The conclusion of the 

brief is as follows: 

Venezuela, with great respect but with great confidence, now admits to this high tribunal the very serious issues 

involved. She does this in the happy belief that in the short but brilliant history of arbitration tribunals this one will 

find a conspicuous place, and will recommend to other nations the use of this great agency or peace. Venezuela has 

no direct representative upon this tribunal; and by this fact, it is more nearly assimilated to the great courts of justice 

from which the idea of representation is wholly absent. No other international tribunal has presented this feature. 

They have been too much the conference of representatives, rather than the consultations of Judges, to whom the 

parties are quite indifferent. 

The one tends to unsatisfactory compromises, the other to decrees that establish rights. In the very constitution, 

therefore, of this tribunal we have the strongest appeal to the sense of impartial justice and the surest ground of 

hope that the judgment may confirm the faith of those who believe that it is possible to bring the nations to a bar 

that will treat them with the same impartiality that is shown to individual litigants. When that confidence is fully 

established the era of a universal peace will be near. 

The brief is signed by Benjamin Harrison, Benjamin F. Tracy, S. Mallet-Prevost, and James 

Russell Soley, counsel for Venezuela. 

[17 March 1899] 

- 440 - 

The Venezuela Arbitration 

577

1899 – 1904 

WASHINGTON, April 1.—Arrangements have been made for the sailing on May 11 of ex- 

President Harrison and ex-Secretary Tracy for Paris, where they will act as counsel for Venezuela 

before the international court of arbitration, which meets in Paris on May 25. Chief Justice Fuller 

and Justice Brewer, who are arbitrators, will probably go at the same time. 

[2 April 1899] 

- 441 - 

THE VENEZUELAN ARBITRATION 

It Is Postponed Presumably Because of the Peace Conference 

WASHINGTON, May 10.—The British-Venezuelan arbitration, which was to begin at Paris on 

the 24th of this month, has been postponed until June 15. 

An inference has been drawn from this postponement that the Czar’s peace congress will be 

brief, as Mr. Maertens, the eminent Russian jurist, is one of the Russian delegates to the Czar’s 

congress and also one of the arbitrators on the British-Venezuelan question. It was impossible, 

therefore, for him to be present at both events. 

A postponement of the meeting in Paris was therefore arranged until June 15, with the 

understanding that Mr. Maertens’s services at The Hague would not be required beyond that date. 

Being one of the Czar’s personal representatives, it is hardly expected Mr. Maertens would leave the 

congress while it was in session, so that the arrangement just concluded is taken to indicate that the 

peace congress will be over by June 15, thus giving about three weeks for discussion. 

[11 May 1899] 

- 442 - 


PARIS, May 17.—Owing to the attendance at the Czar’s Peace Conference, to open tomorrow 

at The Hague, of Prof. Martens, Professor of International Law at the University of St. Petersburg 

and final arbitrator of the Venezuelan Arbitration Commission, the meeting of the Venezuelan 

Commission has been postponed for the present. 

[18 May 1899] 

- 443 - 

Venezuela Boundary Arbitration 

578


WASHINGTON, May 22.—Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Brewer of the United States 

Supreme Court expect to sail for Paris on the 31st inst., whither they go to participate in the 

Venezuela boundary arbitration. 

[23 May 1899] 

- 444 - 

MR. HARRISON IN PARIS 

The ex-President Has an Interview with President Loubet 

—Speaks of the Venezuelan Commission 

PARIS, May 27.—Ex-President Harrison, accompanied by Gen. Horace Porter, United States 

Ambassador, this morning had an interview lasting a quarter of an hour with M. Delcasse, Minister 

of Foreign Affairs. The interview was of the most cordial character. 

This afternoon Mr. Harrison and Ambassador Porter called upon President Loubet. After a 

ceremonious introduction, they dropped all formality and conversed in the most friendly manner 

upon topics of interest to the two countries. M. Loubet said he was especially pleased to meet Mr. 

Harrison, who was “doubly his colleague, both being heads of sister republics and both lawyers.” He 

also said he desired to congratulate Mr. Harrison upon the mission with which he had been intrusted 

and which had brought him to Paris; and expressed gratification that the Venezuelan Commission 

had elected to meet in France. 

Mr. Harrison replied in a similar vein, saying he was rejoiced at the meeting of the commission in 

Paris, as it gave him an opportunity of visiting for the first time a country for which he had the most 

profound admiration, and which was united to his own by so many inseparable bonds. He then 

thanked M. Loubet for the cordial hospitality of the Commissioners, whose mission was one of 

peace, and for the interest shown in their work. 

The President and ex-President then drifted to the general subject of arbitration, Mr. Harrison 

expressing the view that it was essential, in order to make the use of arbitration general, that the 

representative idea should be eliminated from such tribunals. In order that they should retain purely 

judicial character every member of arbitration tribunals should, he thought, be absolutely indifferent 

to the individual interests of the parties in litigation. 

In the course of an interview with a representative of the Associated Press, Mr. Harrison said 

that President Loubet seemed to be a sincere friend of arbitration. Mr. Harrison also said that the 

original date for the meeting of the commission was chosen with a view to enabling the American 

members to return to the United States in October, but under present circumstances, Prof. de 

Martens had fixed the new date for June 15, as he expected that his part of the business at The 

Hague would be over then. He added that although it was difficult to say when the work of the 

commission would be completed, he hoped it would be terminated by the end of August. 

The commission, he said, would probably hold four meetings weekly, each of four hours’ 

duration. This means from eight to ten weeks of effective work, into which will be crowded the 

whole case, with the pleadings of counsel. 

Regarding the Peace Conference, Mr. Harrison said he thought the principal object for which it 

had been called would not be attained, but that some form of arbitration or a step toward its 

579

1899 – 1904 

adoption may be the outcome of the meeting. Ex-President Harrison and Mrs. Harrison have 

accepted an invitation to the parliamentary dinner to be given by President Loubet on Monday next. 

[28 May 1899] 

- 445 - 

THE BRITISH-VENEZUELA CASE 

Russia Blamed for the Delay in the Arbitration Proceedings 

WASHINGTON, June 6.—There is considerable dissatisfaction in official and diplomatic circles 

over the continued postponement of the British-Venezuelan arbitration proceedings, as the delay 

causes personal inconvenience to Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Brewer, who are arbitrators, and to 

ex-President Harrison and ex-Secretary Tracy, who are counsel, as well as the British and 

Venezuelan officials now gathered at Paris. The postponement was caused by Russia naming Mr. 

Mertens, who is on the Venezuelan Commission, as one of the Russian delegates at The Hague 

Conference. Although most of the American and Venezuelan officials are now in Paris, they are 

unable to proceed with the work, and it is said that there is doubt whether Mr. Mertens will be free 

by the 25th instant, the day to which the court adjourned its meeting. 

The suggestion was made to-day in a high diplomatic quarter that it would be well for Russia to 

withdraw Mr. Mertens from the representation at The Hague and permit him to proceed with the 

arbitration at Paris, as the interests as well as the convenience of all three Governments would be 

much subserved thereby. This could be more readily done, it was pointed out, as Russia would still 

be well represented at The Hague by such eminent diplomats as Baron de Stael and Count 

Mouravief. The desirability of some such arrangement has been officially discussed, and it may be 

brought to the attention of the Russian authorities unless they take the initiative by freeing Mr. 

Mertens from his duties at The Hague, so that the British-Venezuelan arbitration can proceed. 

[7 June 1899] 

- 446 - 


Members of the Commission Going to Paris to Begin Work 

LONDON. June 8.—The Attorney General, Sir Richard Webster Q. C.; Sir Robert Treshie Reid 

Q. C., the former Attorney General, and G. R. Askwith of the British Venezuelan Boundary 

Commission started for Paris to-day. Others leave at the end of the week, and the Lord Chief 

Justice, Baron Russell of Killowen, and Sir Richard Henn Collins, Lord Justice of Appeal, will leave 

for the French capital shortly, in order to be present at the opening of the Venezuela boundary 

arbitration, June 15. Counsel for Venezuela and Mr. Mallet-Prevost, Secretary of the Boundary 

Commission, have statements of the case, amounting to 6,000 pages of closely printed matter in 

580


Spanish, Dutch, French and English, accompanied by 200 maps. The opening speech of Sir Richard 

Webster is expected to last sixteen days. 

[9 June 1899] 

- 447 - 

VENEZUELAN ARBITRATION 

First Meeting of the Commissioners to be Held at Paris This Morning— 

Rules of Procedure Adopted 

PARIS, June 14.—A preliminary and informal meeting of counsel engaged in the Venezuelan 

arbitration was held at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs this morning. 

The meetings of the Venezuelan Commission will be held in the apartment which was placed at 

the disposal of the Spanish-American Peace Commission. It was also used in the Bering Sea 

arbitration. Workmen have been busy all day in preparing it and arranging the furniture. 

The first formal meeting of the Commissioners will be at 11 o’clock to-morrow morning. 

At this morning’s informal conference a series of rules of procedure was adopted. Prof. F. de 

Martens, the umpire in the dispute, who is Professor of International Law in the University of 

Petersburg, and a permanent member of the Council of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Russia, 

as well as a member of the Russian delegation at The Hague Peace Conference, proposed the rules, 

to which some amendments were made at the suggestion of other members of the tribunal. The 

hours of session were fixed from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. with half an hour for luncheon, and it was agreed 

to hold five sessions weekly after Prof. de Martens has finished his work at The Hague, which he 

expects, will be about the end of next week. M. Martin, an official of the French Foreign Office, was 

appointed permanent Secretary of the tribunal. 

It is expected that the arguments will be begun to-morrow, after a brief inaugural address by 

Prof. de Martens, Sir Richard Webster, the British Attorney General opening the case on behalf of 

Great Britain. A number of counsel will speak. The order of their addresses is to be left to the 

counsel themselves. 

Prof. de Martens was seen at the Hotel Chatham this evening. Regarding the delay in beginning 

the work of the tribunal he said: 

“I have been detained by work at The Hague, and the postponement of my arrival here was 

arranged with the consent of the other members of the tribunal. The proceedings could have been 

begun and continued last October, but they were postponed at the instance of the Americans, owing 

to the fact that Chief Justice Fuller of the United States Supreme Court was obliged to attend to 

official duties at home, which occupied him until last month. 

“I shall return to The Hague after to-morrow’s session, but shall come back here next week. I 

expect then to be compelled to return again to The Hague for a few days, but on my return to Paris 

I shall stay with the tribunal until its work is completed.” 

Questioned respecting the prospects of the prospects of the Peace Conference at The Hague, 

Prof. de Martens declined to say more than that he expected the proceedings would be concluded 

about the end of this month, with “distinctly practical results.” 

581

1899 – 1904 

[15 June 1899] 

- 448 - 

VENEZUELA CASE OPENED 

The Arbitration Tribunal Begins Its Work in Paris 

GREAT BRITAIN HEARD FIRST 

Sir Richard Webster Gives a Review of 

the Boundary Question and Discusses Former Treaties 

PARIS, June 15.—The first formal meeting of the Venezuelan Arbitration Commission opened 

this morning. The arbitrators, counsel, and others began assembling at the Foreign Office shortly 

before 11 o’clock. They were received by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. M. Delcassé in the 

apartment in which the tribunal will sit. These are thee rooms used at the meeting of the Spanish- 

American Peace Conference and during the Bering Sea arbitration. 

The main room is an oblong chamber luxuriously decorated, having rich moldings on the walls 

and ceilings and heavy gilt ornamentations, relieved by frescoes in light tones. The ceiling is light 

blue, and in its centre are magnificent gilt chandeliers. On a raised dais at the end of the room, 

facing the entrance, are five massive gilt armchairs for the arbitrators, with a table in front of them. 

Below the dais are half a dozen long tables, placed across the room, for counsel and clerical staff. All 

the furniture is upholstered in bright red, with gilt frames. A large colored map of the disputed 

territory hangs on the wall to the right of the arbitrators, with a smaller map of the whole of South 

America beside it. 

Altogether there were about forty persons connected with the tribunal present. The arbitrators 

and most of their staffs were dressed in frock coats. There were less than a dozen spectators in the 

portion of the apartment roped off for the general public, and half a dozen ladies, including Mrs. 

Benjamin Harrison and others belonging to the American party. 

The arbitrators took their seats soon after 11 o’clock. Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller and Sir 

Richard Henn Collins, Lord Justice of Appeals, sitting on the right of Prof. de Martens, the umpire, 

and Baron Russell of Killowen, Lord Chief Justice of England, and Justice David S. Brewer sitting 

on his left hand. Ex-President Benjamin Harrison, Gen. Benjamin K. Tracy, and the remainder of 

the Americans sat at the tables at the left side of the room, facing the court, and the British 

representatives were seated at tables on the right side. Counsel used the desks which served during 

the Bering Sea deliberations. 

WELCOMED BY M. DELCASSÉ 

The proceedings opened at 11:20, when M. Delcassé briefly addressed the tribunal in French. 

The Foreign Minister said it gave him special pleasure to welcome the high commission in behalf of 

the Government of the Republic, which, he added, was greatly pleased at the fact that Paris had 

been chosen for the sitting of the tribunal, among whom he saw such eminent men, some of whom 

had occupied with distinction the highest positions. Under the Presidency of M. de Martens, who 

was universally acknowledged as an authority on international law, he continued, their labors could 

only result happily in the interests of the dispute and in the interests of humanity, for it would 

582


constitute another step toward the realization of the noble project which, launched from an 

illustrious throne, was making rapid way into the hearts and consciences of the people, and had thus 

imposed itself with singular force on the solicitude of those who govern them. M. Delcassé 

concluded by thanking the arbitrators for having accepted the hospitality of France. 

Prof. de Martens replied, thanking the French Foreign Minister for his welcome and for the 

hospitality extended to the arbitrators. The speaker recalled the fact that he came here seven years 

ago to attend the Bering Sea arbitration. Referring to the work being done at The Hague in the 

matter of arbitration, he said the Peace Conference sought not merely to arrange a settlement of 

conflicts, but the avoidance of conflicts, and expressed the hope that the present tribunal would 

have the result of promoting the welfare and prosperity of the two countries interested. 

The professor then announced the rules of procedure agreed upon at yesterday’s conference, and 

said the arbitrators would meet every day excepting Sundays. 

Sir Richard Webster, the British Attorney General, thereupon arose and said that in order to 

meet the view of ex-President Harrison and the other American counsel, in which the English 

representatives concurred, he proposed that they meet only four days in the week, in view of the 

extremely heavy work before them. 

MR. HARRISON RAISES A SMILE 

Mr. Harrison said he thought there would be in four days’ work enough for ordinary men, and 

he evoked a general smile as, looking around on the gathering of the most eminent jurists of Great 

Britain and America, he added: “And we are all ordinary men.’ The work before them, he added, 

would be a tremendous strain upon counsel. 

Prof. de Martens agreed that four days’ meeting per week would he sufficient, arranging that the 

arbitrators would not meet on Fridays, Saturdays or Sundays. 

Sir Richard Webster then asked: “As the learned Prof. Martens is going back to The Hague 

tonight, what days does he propose to give us next week?” 

The professor replied that he hoped to give them two days during the latter half of next week, 

and that he would write from The Hague on Sunday fixing the day of his arrival. 

After this Sir Richard Webster announced that counsel had arranged that he should speak first, 

then two Venezuelan counsel, next Great Britain, with possibly two counsel, then Venezuela, and 

next Great Britain. The final speech was to be made by Venezuela. Sir Richard opened his speech by 

mentioning that he had the privilege years ago to appear in the same room as junior counsel in the 

Bering Sea case, He was standing at the very desk which served at that time. It was a. significant fact 

that Venezuela was represented by distinguished men of the American Republic, while America was 

represented on the bench by two judges of the very highest position. It was a great honor for 

himself and his colleagues to address such a tribunal. 

The loading counsel for Great Britain then paid a tribute to Prof. de Martens, whose reputation 

was international, and said: 

I shall probably have to say much with which my friends disagree, but I am sure they will extend 

to us the courtesy of forbearance, which we desire to extend to them and which is customary 

between counsel in these cases.” 

Continuing, Sir Richard said he only intended to touch to-day upon the general topics underlying 

the whole discussion, and proceeded to give geographical and historical review of the whole 

question, going hack to the time of Columbus. 

583

1899 – 1904 

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER’S SPEECH 

In the course of his remarks he said he regarded the Treaty of Munster as a most important 

matter for the tribunal, as Great Britain held that Spain was not entitled to claim the whole of the 

Western world in view of the fact that she was established in the position of the Dutch. He 

presumed American counsel took an utterly different view of the construction of both the Munster 

and Utrecht Treaties, and thought the arguments advanced by American counsel were not 

characterized by that breadth which might be expected from such eminent counsel. 

The representative of Great Britain then took up the terms of the treaty of arbitration, and laid 

great stress on the British contention that the treaty was a contract between Venezuela and Great 

Britain, and not between the Spaniards and Dutch. The tribunal, he contended, had to decide the 

boundary between Venezuela and British Guiana at the present time, and not between the Spaniards 

and Dutch in 1814. 

Counsel then said that, in order to clear up any misunderstanding, he announced that Great 

Britain recognized Venezuela as the successor of Spain, and he submitted that the boundary, as it 

might have been settled in 1814, was not the same as it ought to be defined to-day. Respecting the 

fifty years’ title clause, Great Britain submitted that it ought to come back from the date of the 

conclusion of the treaty of arbitration. Counsel was adverse to holding that fifty years ought to 

constitute a title, whatever might be the paramount title of the other power, as this would cut both 

ways. 

Where such a case was proved the matter could be settled in one of three wars – by deflecting 

the boundary line with territorial compensation elsewhere, without territorial equivalent, or by the 

payment of compensation, adding that the tribunal had absolute discretion in the matter. 

Sir Richard Webster spoke in a clear voice, and the arbitrators and counsel followed the speech 

closely, making notes and occasionally asking him to clear up a doubtful point. He occupied the 

remainder of the day in an explanation, with the aid of the map on the wall, of the geographical 

difficulties of the dispute, and concluded the opening stage of his speech shortly before 4 o’clock, 

when the tribunal adjourned. Prof. de Martens said he hoped to be able to hold the next meeting on 

the coming Wednesday. 

The members of the tribunal were photographed this afternoon, grouped on the steps at the 

entrance of the Foreign Office. 

The officials of the Foreign Office provided a substantial luncheon for the Commissioners and 

their staffs in a hall adjoining the courtroom. 

[16 June 1899] 

- 449 - 


Hearing Before the Paris Arbitration Commission Resumed 

SIR R. WEBSTER’S ARGUMENT 

Deals with the History of the Country from 1500 to 1637— 

Says Spain Controlled Only a Small Portion 

584


PARIS, June 21.—The Venezuelan Boundary Commission reassembled at 11 o’clock this 

morning. Sir Richard Webster, the British Attorney General, resumed his speech on behalf the case 

of Great Britain. 

Dealing with the period from 1500 to 1637, he said that Great Britain was unable to rely on the 

data relating to Spanish and Venezuelan control, and was compelled to fall back upon the discovery 

and circumnavigation, so-called, of the unit of Guiana. Venezuela, he said, argued that Guiana was a 

defined area, and had taken part of it in the name of the whole, taking such possession as to entitle it 

to the whole. 

In minute detail Sir Richard reviewed the work of the various explorers upon whom Venezuela 

relied, claiming they were not relevant to the territory of Guiana, and adding that the statements 

made before the United States Commission must not be used in argument against Great Britain, as 

frequent deductions were made which were totally unsupported, as Justice Brewer, a former member 

of that commission, would doubtless remember. 

According to Sir Richard Webster, the first explorer who really reached Guiana was De Berrio, 

and his expedition was intended, Sir Richard added, to apply to a different part of the country and 

for a different object than that alleged by Venezuela, who sought to apply it to a small district. He 

protested against the expedition in question being “pieced on” so as to establish this “so-called 

Spanish title,” further asserting that “it had failed miserably, as both the Dutch and Spanish 

historians agreed that there was only one Spanish settlement on the Orinoco before 1720. 

As to the Spanish coasting voyages, Sir Richard said the Spaniards occasionally traded, but the 

Dutch traded and settled. By the truce of 1609 the Dutch position was known and acknowledged by 

Spain, and, as Motley, the historian had stated “the orange flag of the republic was to float over all 

America from Manhattan Island to the shores of Brazil and the Straits of Magellan, provided Philip 

had not ships and soldiers to vindicate with the sword that sovereignty which Spanish swords and 

genius had once acquired.” 

Continuing, the British counsel claimed that discovery when not followed by occupation was of 

no value as the basis of title, inasmuch as nations had never consented to the contrary doctrine. 

Discovery, if accompanied by a certified or notorious intention to acquire, gave a prior opportunity 

of acquiring, which opportunity it would be a violation of the comity of nations to interfere with 

prematurely. 

The occupation of vacant parts of the world, treated as not in the possession of a distinct owner, 

was not a case of transfer of possession, for there were no parties between whom such a convention 

could pass. Guiana was vacant. The Dutch settled and controlled it, while the Spaniards held one 

miserable spot on the Orinoco, which could not control the huge district lying between the Orinoco 

and the Essequibo. 

Sir Richard Webster then detailed the exploits of the Dutch in conjunction with Sir Walter 

Raleigh, bringing his argument up to the year 1637. 

Lord Chief Justice Russell caused an amusing diversion when Sir Richard Webster, in the course 

of his argument, described the cannibalistic attacks at San Thomé. He asked Sir Richard if the latter 

did not know that this was a libelous statement. Sir Richard replied that he could not vouch 

personally for its accuracy, but it was good history. 

The commission adjourned at 4 o’clock until to-morrow. 

[22 June 1899] 

585

1899 – 1904 

- 450 - 

Venezuelan Boundary Commission 

PARIS, June 27.—The Venezuelan Boundary Commission met to-day. Sir Richard Webster, the 

British Attorney General, continued his argument in support of the case of Great Britain. 

[28 June 1899] 

- 451 - 


PARIS, June 28.—The Venezuelan Arbitration Commission resumed its sessions this morning, 

and Sir Richard Webster, the British Attorney General, continued his presentation of the case of 

Great Britain. During the afternoon President Loubet received the members of the commission. 

They were introduced to him by Prof. Martens, the umpire in the boundary dispute. 

[29 June 1899] 

- 452 - 

THE VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY 

Dispute as to Whether Documents Can Be Submitted in Part 

PARIS, June 29.—The Venezuelan Arbitration Commission was again in session to-day and the 

leading counsel for Great Britain, Sir Richard Webster, the British Attorney General, continued his 

presentation of his side of the case. The commission adjourned to Wednesday. 

Objecting to certain abstracts of documents introduced by Venezuela, Sir Richard Webster 

demanded that the entire documents should be presented to the court if any reliance was to be 

placed upon the portions submitted. 

Benjamin Harrison, on behalf of Venezuela, demurred to this contention on the ground that the 

time for filing documents had passed. 

Baron Russell of Killowen, one of the arbitrators, remarked that the tribunal could 

scarcely rely upon half a document when it was asserted that the whole bore a different meaning. It 

was finally decided that copies of the documents should first be submitted to the counsel for 

Venezuela. Mr. Harrison intimated that he had thought argument would be heard before this 

opportunity was afforded. 

[30 June 1899] 

586


- 453 - 

Venezuela Arbitration Commission 

PARIS, July 6.—The Venezuela Arbitration Commission resumed its sessions to-day. Sir 

Richard Webster, the British General, continued his argument of the ease of Great Britain. 

[7 July 1899] 

- 454 - 

The Venezuelan Boundary 

PARIS, July 7.—At to-day’s sitting of the Venezuela Arbitration Commission Sir Richard 

Webster, leading counsel for Great Britain, continued his presentation of the British side of the case. 

[8 July 1899] 

- 455 - 


Sir Richard Webster Presents a Chronological Review to 1816 

PARIS, July 8.—At to-day’s session of the Venezuela Arbitration Commission, Sir Richard 

Webster, Attorney General of Great Britain, presented in support of the British Case a chronological 

review up to the year 1816. 

He will continue this feature of his argument Monday. 

[9 July 1899] 

- 456 - 

Honors Venezuelan Commission 

PARIS, July 9.—Sir Edmund John Monson, British Ambassador to France, last evening 

entertained at dinner the members of the Venezuelan Arbitration Tribunal. 

[10 July 1899] 

587

1899 – 1904 

- 457 - 

Venezuelan Arbitration Work 

PARIS, July 10.—At to-day’s session of the Venezuelan Arbitration Commission Sir Richard 

Webster, in behalf of Great Britain, brought the chronological review up to the year 1841. 

The United States Ambassador, Gen. Horace Porter, will give a dinner and reception to-night in 

honor of the members of the commission and counsel. 

[11 July 1899] 

- 458 - 

Venezuelan Commission’s Progress 

PARIS, July 11.—At to-day’s session of the Venezuelan Arbitration Commission, Sir Richard 

Webster, the British Attorney General, continued his argument in behalf of the ease of Great 

Britain. 

At the close of the session of the commission the members were photographed. 

[12 July 1899] 

- 459 - 


PARIS, July 12.—At the session of the Venezuelan Arbitration Commission to-day, Sir Richard 

Webster, the British Attorney General, in continuing his presentation of the case of Great Britain, 

brought his chronological review up to 1896. He will close his speech to-morrow. 

[13 July 1899] 

- 460 - 

FIGHTING VENEZUELA’S CLAIMS 

PARIS, July 13.—Sir Richard Webster, Attorney General of Great Britain, concluded, to-day, 

before the Venezuelan Arbitration Commission, his presentation of the British case. 

During the course of his remarks he said it would be a deathblow to arbitration if the courts 

sanctioned such claims as advanced by Venezuela. It would, he added, in fact, imply that an 

unsupported claim amounted to a title. 

The sessions of the commission were then adjourned until Wednesday next. 

588


[14 July 1899] 

- 461 - 

NO INTEREST IN VENEZUELA 

London Is Indifferent to This Question of Arbitration 

Special to The New-York Times 

LONDON, July 14.—The Venezuelan arbitration tribunal has adjourned until Wednesday, after 

listening to Sir Richard Webster for thirteen days. 

The matter excites no interest here. 

[15 July 1899] 

- 462 - 

Venezuelan Commissioners Dined 

PARIS, July 17.—Mr. Mallet-Prevost entertained the members of the Venezuelan Arbitration 

Tribunal at dinner this evening. 

[18 July 1899] 

- 463 - 

EL DORADO IN VENEZUELA 

Vast Natural Wealth of the Guruari and Delta Territory Claimed by Great Britain 

WASHINGTON, July 18.—Mr. Frank B. Loomis, the American Minister to Venezuela, was at 

the State Department to-day, having recently arrived in the United Status from his post. Mr. Loomis 

says that business in Venezuela is considerably depressed owing to the low price of coffee. 

The people of the country, he says, are very hopeful that the result of the boundary line 

arbitration will confirm Venezuela’s title to the disputed territory, which turns out to be fabulously 

rich in gold, silver, copper, and other minerals. Some diamonds have also been discovered. 

Mr. Loomis says that a great project for a huge canal system to connect the waters of the 

Orinoco, Amazon, and Platte is being discussed, but the vast sum necessary to construct it, 

estimated at from $100,000,000 to $300,000,000, staggers the projectors. 

[19 July 1899] 

589

1899 – 1904 

- 464 - 

The Venezuela Commission 

PARIS, July 19.—The Venezuela Arbitration Commission did not meet to-day as intended, but 

will meet on Friday. 

[20 July 1899] 

- 465 - 

VENEZUELA’S CASE OPENED 

Spain, Maitre Prevost Declared, Settled Her Rights by Discovery 

PARIS, July 21.—Maitre Prevost opened the case for Venezuela at to-day’s sitting of the British- 

Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration Commission. 

Maitre Prevost cited authorities on international law to show that the right of discovery gives 

prior rights under conditions, which be claimed, Spain fulfilled. Spain had occupied and settled 

points on all the important rivers between the Orinoco and the Amazon in 1630 

[22 July 1899] 

- 466 - 

The Venezuelan Boundary 

PARIS, July 24.—Mr. Mallet-Prevost, Secretary of the Boundary Commission, on behalf of 

Venezuela, continued his argument to-day before the British-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration 

Commission. 

[25 July 1899] 

- 467 - 

Venezuela Arbitrators Entertained 

PARIS. July 25.—Baron Russell of Killowen, Lord Chief Justice of England, and a member of 

the Venezuela Arbitration Commission, entertained his colleagues of the commission at dinner today. 

[26 July 1899] 

590


- 468 - 

Venezuela Arbitration Argument 

PARIS, July 28.—M. Mallet-Prevost, Secretary of the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration 

Commission, to-day continued his presentation of the Venezuelan case. He dealt with the period 

from 1609 to 1648, where, he contended, the Spaniards were all-powerful in Guiana. 

[29 July 1899] 

- 469 - 

GEN. ANTONIO G. BLANCO DEAD 

Ex-Dictator of Venezuela Expires in Paris—He Did Much to Develop the Country 

PARIS, July 29.—Gen. Antonio Guzman Blanco, ex-President of Venezuela is dead. 

Gen. Antonio Guzman Blanco played a most important part in the history of Venezuela. For 

many years be was the absolute dictator of the country, either in name or in fact, and he was in the 

habit of calling himself its “pacificator and regenerator.” While he used his power to amass a large 

private fortune, it is generally acknowledged that his was the principal influence in establishing a 

better Government than had existed prior to his time and in developing the material resources or 

the nation. 

He was born at Caracas in 1828. His father was the private secretary of Simon Bolivar, and was 

at one time a member of the Venezuelan Cabinet. Living in an atmosphere of revolution, he became 

a soldier when a mere boy. His rise to power occurred in 1863, when, at the head of a revolutionary 

force, be marched on Caracas and overthrew the existing Government, of which Gem José Antonio 

Paez was President. 

A new Government was organized, with Gen. Tovar Castro as President and Gen. Blanco as 

Vice President. The latter, however, was the real head of the Administration, and for nearly twentyfive 

years thereafter his was the controlling mind in the Government. 

A new Constitution was proclaimed on March 28, 1864, making large extensions in the popular 

rights. From 1867 to 1871 the country was disturbed by various revolutionary movements, all of 

which were suppressed by the strong hand of Blanco. In December, 1871, he was proclaimed 

provisional President, or Dictator, and in 1873 he was regularly elected President. He was re-elected 

in 1877, and again in 1881, and he exercised complete control over the Administration of Gen. 

Joaquin Crespo, who succeeded him as President in 1884. It was not until 1888 that a popular 

revolution put an end to his authority and placed Dr. Pablo Rojas Paul in the Presidential chair. 

Under the direction of Blanco as Dictator and President a system of compulsory public 

education was organized, telegraph and postal systems were established, and many railroads and 

other public works were constructed. The projects undertaken and carried out by him resulted in an 

enormous increase in the commerce and wealth of the country. By an amended constitution adopted 

through his influence in 1881, the twenty States of which the republic had originally been composed 

were consolidated into eight Sates, five Territories, anti one colony, and the General Government 

was centralized and strengthened. 

591

1899 – 1904 

The arbitration of the boundary dispute between Venezuela and British Guiana, which is now in 

progress at Paris, was first suggested by Gen. Blanco in 1882, when he directed the Venezuelan 

Minister in London to suggest to the British Government that means of settling the question. In 

1884, after he had given up the Presidency, but while he still retained his almost dictatorial power in 

Venezuela, Gen. Blanco went to London as Minister Plenipotentiary for the purpose of reaching a 

settlement of the dispute. On his way he stopped in Washington and conferred with the Secretary of 

State, who instructed James Russell Lowell, then United States Minister in London, to use his 

discretion as to how far his good offices could profitably be employed, but at any rate, to “take 

proper occasion to let Lord Granville know that we are not without concern as to whatever may 

affect the interests of a sister republic on the American continent and its position in the family of 

nations.” As the result of combined efforts of Gen. Blanco and Mr. Lowell, Lord Granville agreed 

to a general arbitration of the boundary question, but before the treaty was signed Lord Salisbury 

became Premier, and, upon his refusal to conclude the arrangement made by his predecessor, the 

negotiations came to an end for the time being. 

His mission to England was Gen. Blanco’s last important public service. Being out of office, and 

for a time absent from Venezuela, his influence waned, and a strong party sprang up by which he 

was accused of having used his power for private gain. During the temporary occupation of Caracas 

by a revolutionary force, numerous statues of himself which he had caused to be erected in the 

Venezuelan capital were demolished by his enemies. One of these statues bore the following 

inscription, which Blanco had dictated: “To that Illustrious American, the Pacificator and 

Regenerator of the United States of Venezuela, Gen. Antonio Guzman Blanco.” These words are an 

index to the pride and self-esteem which were among Gen. Blanco’s most striking characteristics. 

Shortly after his fall from power, Gen Blanco took up his residence in Paris with his wife and 

five children. He became noted in the French capital as a dandy in dress and a brilliant entertainer, 

the fortune which he had amassed in Venezuela enabling him to gratify all his tastes for pleasure and 

luxury. One of his daughters is married to the Duc de Morny, a leader in the fashionable life of 

Paris. 

[30 July 1899] 

- 470 - 


PARIS. July 31.—At to-day’s session of the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration 

Commission, M. Mallet-Prevost, the Secretary of that body, continued his presentation of the 

Venezuelan case. Baron Russell of Killowen, Lord Chief Justice of England, suggested the 

advisability of M. Mallet-Prevost curtailing his argument, but Melville W. Fuller, Chief Justice of the 

United States Supreme Court, intervened in favor of the speaker. The court will continue its sitting 

to-morrow. 

[1 August 1899] 

592


- 471 - 


PARIS, Aug. 1—At the session to-day of the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration 

Commission, the argument of M. Mallet-Prevost, the Secretary of the commission, in his 

presentation of the Venezuelan case, was confined to evidence showing that after 1761 the whole 

trade of Guiana was in the hands of Spain. 

[2 August 1899] 

- 472 - 

Venezuelan Boundary History 

PARIS, Aug. 2.—M. Mallet-Prevost, Secretary of the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration 

Commission, in his presentation of the Venezuelan case before that body to-day devoted his 

argument to showing that up to 1814 Spain had effective control of the coast from the Orinoco to 

the Essequibo. 

[3 August 1899] 

- 473 - 

Venezuelan Boundary Case 

PARIS, Aug. 7.—At the session of the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration Commission today, 

M. Mallet-Prevost, the Secretary of the commission, in continuing his presentation of the 

Venezuelan case, discussed various claims relative to the interior of Guiana, quoting documents to 

show that the Dutch never went above the first cataracts of the Essequibo and other rivers. 

[8 August 1899] 

- 474 - 


PARIS, Aug. 8.—M. Mallet-Prevost, the Secretary of the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary 

Arbitration Commission, at to-day’s sitting of that body continued his presentation of the 

Venezuelan case, and devoted the day to showing that the Dutch never claimed territory which 

Great Britain now says they owned. 

593

1899 – 1904 

[9 August 1899] 

- 475 - 

VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY CASE 

M. Mallet-Prevost Concludes His Presentation To-day—Three Blue Books 

PARIS, Aug. 9.—M. Mallet-Prevost, the Secretary of the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary 

Arbitration Commission, at to-day’s sitting of that body proceeded with his presentation of the 

Venezuelan ease and introduced evidence with the object of proving the Spaniards ejected the 

Dutch from the Cuyuni River in the right of jurisdiction. M. Mallet-Prevost will conclude his 

argument to-morrow, when Prof. R. Soley will discuss the question from the date of the British 

occupation in 1814. 

[10 August 1899] 

- 476 - 

ARBITRATION A SLOW METHOD 

The London Times Comments on the Venezuela Boundary Case 

LONDON, Aug 12.—The Times, in an editorial this morning on the Venezuela boundary 

arbitration, complains that the proceedings are unnecessarily protracted and expresses a fear that the 

example thus set will “operate to prejudice the arbitral mode of settling differences.” It says: 

“Unfortunately this is a too common drawback to international references. Witness also the 

Delagoa and Bering Sea cases. If the system is not to break down tribunals must exercise a free hand 

in discouraging the prodigies of physical energy in which modern advocates are too prone to 

indulge.” 

[12 August 1899] 

- 477 - 


PARIS, Aug. 12—The sessions of the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration Commission 

were resumed to-day. Prof. John R. Soley began his argument on behalf of the Venezuelan side of 

the ease, treating of the period of the British possession of the Essequibo. He declared that up to 

1856 Great Britain only possessed Moruca. The sittings of the commission will be continued on 

Monday. 

[13 August 1899] 

594


- 478 - 

The Anglo-Venezuelan Commission 

PARIS, Aug. 14.—At to-day’s session of the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration 

Commission Prof. John R. Soley, in continuing his presentation of the Venezuelan case, discussed 

the question of military control and jurisdiction, neither of which, prior to 1850, he said, had 

extended west of the Essequibo River. 

[15 August 1899] 

- 479 - 

Venezuela Boundary Argument 

PARIS. Aug. 15.—Prof. John R. Soley continued his argument at the session to-day of the 

Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration Commission, in behalf of the Venezuelan side of the ease, 

claiming that English jurisdiction never extended beyond the Essequibo River. After to-morrow’s 

session an adjournment will be taken until Aug. 25. 

[16 August 1899] 

- 480 - 

Venezuela Boundary Court Adjourns 

PARIS, Aug. 16.—At to-day’s session of’ the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration 

Commission, Prof. John R. Soley, in continuing argument in behalf of the Venezuelan case, made a 

general attack on the case of Great Britain. He then quoted evidence as to Venezuelan influence in 

the same territory. The court adjourned until Aug. 26.* 

[17 August 1899] 

(* This date is an error in this news item. The court adjourned until Aug. 25.) 

- 481 - 

Venezuela Boundary Argument Resumed 

PARIS, Aug. 25.—The sittings of the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration Commission 

were resumed to-day. Prof. John H. Solely, continuing his argument in behalf of the Venezuela case, 

595

1899 – 1904 

said that, while evidence of British sovereignty was absent, proofs existed of Venezuela’s control. He 

devoted much of his time to an interpretation of the agreement of 1850. 

[26 August 1899] 

- 482 - 

VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY MAPS 

Prof. Soley Charges that Schomburgk’s Show Private Motives 

PARIS, Aug. 26.—At the session to-day of the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration 

Commission, Prof. John R. Soley, in continuing his argument in support of the Venezuelan case, 

devoted the day to a criticism of Sir Robert Schomburgk’s maps. He declared that Sir Robert’s 

guiding motives were to be found in private and not in official data, the main object being to give 

Barima Point, commanding the whole Orinoco, to Great Britain. 

The commission adjourned until Monday. 

[27 August 1899] 

- 483 - 


PARIS. Aug. 29.—Prof. John H. Soley, on behalf of Venezuela, concluded his argument before 

the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration Commission at noon to-day. Sir Robert Thresie Reid, 

Q. C. former Attorney General, who followed, said Venezuela claims to be the residuary legatee of 

the ancient Spanish claim, though neither she nor Spain did anything for 280 years in the disputed 

territory. 

[30 August 1899] 

- 484 - 

The Venezuela Boundary Argument 

PARIS, Aug. 30.—At the session to-day of the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration 

Commission, Sir Robert Thresie Reid, Q. C., former Attorney General, continued his argument on 

behalf of Great Britain. He said he had examined carefully the contentions in the Oregon case of 

1792 and the Louisiana controversy of 1805, contending that the rights of the first corner were 

identical with those of the second, and he argued that Spain and Venezuela were not entitled to 

claim special rights over the Dutch and English. 

596


[31 August 1899] 

- 485 - 


PARIS, Aug. 31.—At to-day’s session of the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration 

Commission, Sir Robert T. Reid, Q. C., former Attorney General, continued his argument for Great 

Britain. He contended that even it were true that the Dutch abandoned Amakuru fort in 1648 there 

was ammp1e evidence to show they held, without dispute, the Orinoco almost to its source and the 

whole of the Essequibo. 


- 486 - 

English Control of Venezuelan Lands 

PARIS, Sept. 1.—Sir Robert Thresie Reid, Q. C., former Attorney General of Great Britain, at 

to-day’s session of the Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration Commission produced evidence in behalf 

of the British contention to show how thorough was British control in the disputed territory, 

granting of licenses for fishing and timber cutting, and claimed that Great Britain’s judicial authority 

was absolute up to the banks of the Amakuru. He also declared that Venezuela gave no evidence in 

support of her claim to sovereignty except an empty assertion. 


- 487 - 

VENEZUELA’S ARGUMENT 

PARIS. Sept. 4.—Sir Robert Thresie Reid, Q. C., former Attorney General of Great Britain, today 

concluded his argument before the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Commission, presenting the 

case for England. Counsel said that England and Venezuela before the tribunal held absolutely the 

same footing, the question being one of comparative title. 

George Askwith, junior counsel, continued the argument of England’s case. He expressed regret 

that his adversaries had not yet given the legal view of the present controversy. Mr. Askwith referred 

to Spain’s claim to the whole of America, and said the presentation of Venezuela’s case was 

whimsical. He added that no European nation admitted this Spanish claim, and that the Dutch, 

when they obtained their independence, upheld their right of settling in the West Indies and carried 

it into effect. 

597

1899 – 1904 


- 488 - 

Gen. Tracy Argues for Venezuela 

PARIS, Sept. 7.—Gen. Benjamin F. Tracy, before the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration 

Commission to-day, took up his argument in behalf of Venezuela, devoting the greater part of the 

day to a discussion of the international rules relating to the rights of discovery. He claimed that 

Spain had satisfied all the requirements, and that the Orinoco and Amazon inclosed the ancient 

Province of Spain. The commission then adjourned until Monday. 


- 489 - 

VENEZUELAN VERDICT SOON 

WASHINGTON, Sept. 13.—Information has reached officials here that the British- Venezuelan 

court of arbitration now sitting at Paris will conclude its work and render a final decision about the 

first of the coming month. 

This is due to the desire of Chief Justice Fuller, one of the arbitrators, to return to Washington in 

time for the opening of the Supreme Court, on Oct. 10. 

Mr. Harrison has announced to his colleagues that he will make only a brief speech, and this has 

permitted an understanding to close the work about the first of the month and to render a verdict 

on the question before the arbitrators separate. 


- 490 - 

VENEZUELAN COMMISSION 

Sir Richard Webster Begins His Final Speech for Great Britain 

PARIS, Sept. 15.—At to-day’s Session of the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration 

Commission Gen. Benjamin F. Tracy concluded his argument, contending that Great Britain could 

not obtain rights previous to 1850 in consequence of an agreement made that year. 

Sir Richard Webster, the British Attorney General, began the final speech in behalf of Great 

Britain. He urged that the whole case of Venezuela was built upon the paramount title of Spain, and 

that Mr. Tracy had failed to reply to his colleague’s speech, which completely shattered such a title. 

The session will be continued to-morrow. 

598



- 491 - 


PARIS. Sept. 16.—At to-day’s session of the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration 

Commission, Sir Richard Webster, the British Attorney General, completed his review of the treaty 

of Munster. He strongly attacked the theory of overlordship of Spain, and showed the importance of 

considering the matter of spheres of influence. He urged that Venezuela had no title to Barima. 

Though it might have been offered by various Ministers as a concession, it really belonged to 



- 492 - 

VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY 

PARIS, Sept. 18.—At to-day’s session of the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration 

Commission, Sir Richard Webster, the British Attorney General, continuing his argument on behalf 

of Great Britain, dwelt upon the alliance between the Dutch and the Indians. 

Describing the colony as it was in 1714, at the time of the Treaty of Utrecht, he claimed that the 

Dutch then owned all that is now contended for by Great Britain, and argued that the acts of 

Spanish interference during the eighteenth century had been without effect. 

Describing the colony in 1814, be asserted that, at the time of the transfer to England, all the 

territory and all the rivers owned by the Dutch passed from the Netherlands to England. 

Sir Richard criticised the report of M. Mallet-Prevost, Secretary of the commission and one of 

the counsel for Venezuela, upon the maps that have been laid before the tribunal, and then 

commenced to sketch the British period of occupation. He will conclude his argument to-morrow. 


- 493 - 

GEN. HARRISON’S ARGUMENT 

Begins Final Speech for Venezuela Before Boundary Commission 

PARIS. Sept. 19.—Sir Richard Webster, the British Attorney General before the Anglo- 

Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration Commission, concluded his argument in behalf of Great Britain 

to-day. 

599

1899 – 1904 

He said that the conclusion of the agreement of 1850 led to the development of the territory 

which the proceedings of Venezuela had arrested, and urged that no portion of the territory ought 

to be handed to Venezuela, as the decision was to proceed on the ground of right and not of 

compromise or concession. 

Ex-President Benjamin Harrison then began the final speech for Venezuela. He said Venezuela 

demanded that her interests be decided on the ground of strict right and urged that Spain, until 

interrupted by the Dutch, peacefully colonized the coast of Guiana, and always intended to return 

there. Spain, Mr. Harrison pointed out, had obtained a title to Guiana and could only lose it by 

cession, abandonment, or prescription arising against her. 


- 494 - 

GEN. HARRISON SPEAKS FOR VENEZUELA 

PARIS, Sept. 20.—Before the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration Commission to-day ex- 

President Benjamin Harrison continued his argument in behalf of Venezuela, declaring that both 

sides admitted there was a common, coterminous boundary between Guiana and Venezuela, and 

that any idea of a space in which Great Britain could advance was alien to the views of her Ministers 

and to those expressed in the diplomatic correspondence, to the use of which Sir Richard Webster, 

the British Attorney General, had protested that the aggressive surveyor, Sir Robert Schomburgk, 

had advanced the English boundaries, and that Lord Salisbury and Sir Richard Webster had 

advanced them further. Continuing, Mr. Harrison said that if Barima Point was left in other hands 

than those of Venezuela a dangerous situation would be created, both for Venezuela and Great 

Britain. 


- 495 - 

GEN. HARRISON’S ARGUMENT 

Expounds Venezuela’s Claim Before Boundary Commission 

PARIS, Sept. 21.—Continuing his argument in behalf of Venezuela before the Anglo- 

Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration Commission, to-day, ex-President Benjamin Harrison said the 

issue of diplomatic correspondence showed that Great Britain had never claimed more than the 

Dutch had. He held that the legal and political departments of the British Foreign Office did not 

seem to agree, the latter taking its inspiration from the surveyor, Sir Robert Schomburgk, while Sir 

Richard Webster, the British Attorney General, went further and claimed the extended Schomburgk 

line. 

Continuing, Mr. Harrison said he proposed to show that the Dutch rights of 1814 were much 

smaller than those of any line now suggested by Great Britain, and that those lines were now extinct 

600


through the disputed territory. Any extension, he asserted, of the original lines could only be claimed 

through prescription or adverse holding, and all the rest of the country belonged to Venezuela. 

The commission adjourned until Monday. 


- 496 - 

Dinner to Venezuelan Arbitrators 

PARIS, Sept. 23—Sir Richard Henn Collins, Lord Justice of Appeal of the British High Court of 

Judicature, and one of the members of members of the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration 

Commission, gave a dinner this evening to his associates in the tribunal and to the counsel. Mr. and 

Mrs. Benjamin Harrison and Chief Justice Fuller and Mrs. Fuller were present. 


- 497 - 

ENGLISH RIGHTS LIMITED. 

Gen. Harrison Defines the Dutch Rights in Venezuela Territory 

PARIS, Sept. 25.—Before the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Commission to-day, ex-President 

Harrison continued his argument on behalf of Venezuela. Mr. Harrison contended that, while the 

Dutch rights in the so-called “intermediate territory” had been acquired by conquest, these rights 

must be limited by the law of conquest, and the treaty of Munster strictly limited them. 

M. de Maartens, President of the tribunal, asked Mr. Harrison where he found the word 

“delimitization” in the treaty. 

Mr. Harrison replied that he would show that delimitization was a necessary effect, which did 

not, as had been claimed by Sir Richard Webster, on behalf of Great Britain, permit the Dutch to 

acquire concessions, except from the Portuguese in Brazil. 


- 498 - 

VENEZUELAN COMMISSION 

Mr. Harrison Will Conclude His Argument for Venezuela To-day 

PARIS, Sept. 26.—Former President Benjamin Harrison, in continuing his argument in favor of 

Venezuela before the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration Commission to-day, declared that for 

601

1899 – 1904 

half a century prior to the treaty of Munster all the nations interested in America recognized how 

great was the importance attached to discovery, and an actual law existed on the subject. 

Mr. Harrison further declared that Great Britain had set up the question of discovery in the New 

Netherlands controversy of 1865, and had pressed it as a governing law, although it was now 

endeavoring to exclude Venezuela and a part of the coast. 

Harrison will conclude his argument to-morrow. 


- 499 - 

VENEZUELAN AWARD MONDAY 

Gen. Harrison Concludes His Argument Before Boundary Court 

PARIS, Sept. 27.—At to-day’s session of the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration Tribunal 

ex-President Harrison concluded his argument on behalf of Venezuela. 

Mr. Harrison claimed that all the acts of Spain before the arrival of the Dutch gave her absolute 

sovereignty over the whole of Guiana, and that she would have incorporated it as a province but for 

the warlike intervention of the Dutch. In closing he expressed his deep obligation to his associate 

counsel and his thanks for the generous hospitality of France. So far as the distinguished counsel of 

Great Britain were concerned, he said that, however sharp had been the discussion, there had been 

only the kindliest personal and professional regard. 

The tribunal then rose. It is expected that the award will be delivered on Monday next. 


- 500 - 


Little Interest Is Shown in Either London or Paris 

LONDON, Sept. 30.—Gen. Benjamin F. Tracy’s name was on the St. Louis passenger list, but 

he did not appear at the Waterloo Station this morning. He would naturally be anxious to return 

without delay, as his work with the Venezuelan Commission is ended. 

The work of the commission attracted no attention in Paris. Ex-President Harrison and Sir 

Richard Webster are credited with making the best arguments. No interest whatever appears to be 

taken here in the result of the commission’s work. 


602


- 501 - 

VENEZUELA DISPUTE DECIDED 

Boundary Commission Will Announce Its Award To-day— 

It Is Said to Favor Great Britain. 

PARIS, Oct. 2.—It is announced that the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Commission will give its 

award at noon to-morrow, as the tribunal has just risen, after concluding its deliberations. 

The award will be read in the presence of the representatives of Great Britain and Venezuela. 

The Secretaries are now writing it out, and have so notified Messrs. Buchanan and Rojas. 

It is said on good authority that the award will be a decided victory for Great Britain. 

Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Brewer start for London Wednesday, and will sail for New York 

on the While Star Line steamer Majestic Oct. 11. 

Ex-President Benjamin Harrison goes to Berlin Wednesday. From there he will go to The 

Hague, Brussels, and London, where he will spend a few days prior to sailing for the United States 

Oct. 18. 

Sir Richard Webster, Mr. George H. Askwith, and Messrs. Im Thurn, Buchanan, and others go 

to London on Wednesday. 


- 502 - 

GREAT BRITAIN WINS VENEZUELA CASE 

She Gets Territory Covering Almost Her Extreme Claim 

CONCESSIONS TO VENEZUELA 

Orinoco River Lies Wholly Within Her Jurisdiction 

Counsel Discuss the Award—The Arbitration, They Say, Was Merely a 

Diplomatic Compromise—Great Britain Well Satisfied 

PARIS, Oct 3.—The Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration Commission rendered its verdict 

to-day, fixing the boundary line between the United States of Venezuela and the colony of British 

Guiana. Great Britain obtains almost its extreme claim, offset, however, by a cession of a small 

amount of land near the Orinoco River and in the interior. The river remains wholly within 

Venezuelan territory. 

The verdict was read at 12:05 P. M. and was unanimous. 

The award of the tribunal, briefly summarized, means that of the 60,000 square miles claimed, 

Venezuela obtains only 100, formed partly of the marsh land near the River Barima, and a portion in 

the interior; while Great Britain retains all the forest country. 

M. de Martens, the umpire, who has presided over the deliberations of the tribunal entered the 

room, accompanied by the other four members of the tribunal. After they had taken their seats in 

the presence of the counsel of the two parties, of Sir Edmund J. Monson, British Ambassador to 

France, the entire staff of the British Embassy, and a large concourse of people, M. de Martens rose 

603

1899 – 1904 

and in his opening sentences announced that the court would read the award, which had been 

unanimously arrived at, in English and in French. D’Oyly Carte, private secretary to Baron Russell 

of Killowen, one of the British members of the tribunal, read the English text and M. de Martens 

read the French. 

The decision is as follows: 

TEXT OF THE DECISION 

“Starting on the coast at Point Playa, the frontier shall follow a straight line to the confluence of the Barima and 

the Maruima, thence following the thalweg of the latter to its source. Thence it shall proceed to the confluence of 

the Haiowa and the Amakuru; thence following the thalweg of the Amakuru to its source in the Plain of Imataka; 

thence in a southwesterly direction along the highest ridge of the Imataka Mountains to the site the source at the 

Barima and the principal chain of the Imataka Mountains; thence in a southeast direction to the source or the 

Acarabisi. 

“Following the thalweg of the Acarabisi to the Cuyuni, the northern bank of which it shall follow in a westerly 

direction to the confluence of the Cuyuni and the Vanamu; thence along the thalweg of the Vanamu to its 

westernmost source; thence in a straight line to the summit of Mount Roraima; thence to the source of the Cotinga. 

“From this point the frontier shall follow the thalweg of the Cotinga to its confluence with the Takutu; thence 

along the thalweg of the Takutu to its source; thence in a straight line to the most western point of the Akarai 

Mountains, the highest ridge of which it shall follow to the source of the Corentin, otherwise called the Cutari River, 

whence it will follow the course of the river. 

“It is stipulated that the frontier hereby deliminated reserves and in no way prejudices questions actually existing 

or that may hereafter arise between Great Britain and the Republic of Brazil, or between the Republic of Brazil and 

Venezuela. In fixing the above delimitation, the arbitrators consider and decide that, in time at peace, the Rivers 

Amakura and Barima shall be open to navigation by the merchant shipping of all nations, due reserve being made 

with regard to equitable regulations and the payment of light dues and other like imposts, on condition that the dues 

levied by Venezuela and British Guiana on ships traversing the parts of those rivers owned by them respectively 

shall be imposed in accordance with the same tariff on Venezuelan and British vessels. These tariffs are not to 

exceed those of all other countries. The award proceeds also upon the condition that neither Venezuela nor British 

Guiana shall impose any customs duty on goods carried in vessels, ships or boats passing through these rivers, such 

customs being levied only on goods landed “upon Venezuelan territory or on the territory of Great Britain 

respectively.” 

After the reading the President of the tribunal rose and, speaking in English, said he was glad to 

announce that, after three months of hard work, the court had unanimously decided upon the award 

which had just been read. It was a pleasant duty now to restore the former good understanding 

between the contending parties 

He then eloquently thanked his colleagues and the respective counsel, tendering on behalf of the 

tribunal special thanks for the hospitality extended to all by France. These sentiments he repeated in 

French. 

Benjamin Harrison, the principal counsel for Venezuela, then made a few remarks, and was 

followed by Sir Richard Webster, principal counsel for Great Britain, who thanked the French 

Government for its hospitality, and said that Great Britain and Venezuela would work side by side in 

harmony. 

The sitting was then adjourned. 

When asked his opinion regarding the award, Sir Richard Webster said he was satisfied. Mr. 

Harrison, replying to the same inquiry, said, “It might be worse.” 

604


COUNSEL DISCUSS THE AWARD 

Subsequently Mr. Harrison and M. Mallet-Prevost, who were interviewed jointly, pointed out 

that Great Britain up to the time of the intervention of the United States distinctly refused to 

arbitrate any portion of the territory east of the Schomburgk line, alleging that its title was 

unassailable. This territory included the Atacuri River and Point Barima, which is of the greatest 

value strategically and commercially. 

The award, continued the counsel for Venezuela, gives Point Barima, with a strip of land fifty 

miles long, to Venezuela, which thereby obtains entire control of the River Orinoco. Three thousand 

square miles in the interior are also awarded to Venezuela. Thus, by a decision in which the British 

arbitrators concurred, the position taken up by Great Britain in 1895 is shown to be unfounded. 

This, however, as the Venezuelan counsel pointed out, in nowise expresses the full extent of 

Venezuela’s victory. Great Britain had claimed 30,000 square miles of territory west of the 

Schomburgk line, and this she was disposed to arbitrate in 1890. Every foot of that section is now 

awarded to Venezuela. 

The President of the tribunal, in his closing address to-day, the Venezuelan counsel remarked, 

had commented upon the unanimity of the present judgment, and had referred to it as a proof of 

the success of the arbitration; but in the opinion of counsel it did not require much intelligence to 

penetrate behind this superficial statement, and to see that the line drawn is a line of compromise, 

and not a line of right. 

If the British contention were right, the line should have been drawn further west; if it were 

wrong, the line should have been drawn much further east. There was nothing in the history of the 

controversy, or in the legal proceedings involved, counsel contended, which could adequately 

explain why the line should be drawn where it had been. 

The counsel for Venezuela went on to say that, so long as arbitration was conducted on such 

principles, it could not be regarded as a success, at least by those who believe that arbitration should 

result in the admission of legal rights and not in compromises really diplomatic in character. 

Venezuela had gained much, but was entitled to much more, and in the judgment of the joint 

counsel for Venezuela, if the arbitrators were unanimous, it must be because their failure to agree 

would have confirmed Great Britain in the possession of even more territory. 

GREAT BRITAIN SATISFIED 

One of the counsel for Great Britain made the following statement: 

“The award practically indorses the judgment of Sir Robert Schomburgk, whose line it follows 

except in a few particulars. Great Britain acquires the whole of the River Cuyuni, including a site 

which Venezuela alleged to be a fort at the junction of the Curumu and the Cuyuni. The marshy 

Barima district has been awarded to Venezuela, possibly on the principle of national security, but 

with the condition that the river shall be a free waterway to all nations. This piece of land covers 

about thirty square miles. 

“It had been offered with much more land by every British Foreign Minister since the time of 

Lord Aberdeen. 

Great Britain has substantiated almost all her extreme claim. All the valuable plantations and 

gold fields are now indisputably settled within British territory.” 

605

1899 – 1904 

M. DE MARTENS’S OPINION 

M. de Martens, when interviewed, repeated what he had said in his address to the court, adding: 

“I am of the opinion that this tribunal of arbitration is of exceptional importance, inasmuch as it 

is the first tribunal after the Peace Conference at The Hague. 

“It is also important because it is the first tribunal of the kind in which certain rules of procedure 

have been laid down and communicated to counsel as obligatory—rules which have been adhered to 

throughout. 

“These rules are the same as were proposed by the Russian Government for the Conference at 

The Hague, and approved there in July. As they had been laid down by the arbitration tribunal in 

January, they were applied long before the convention at The Hague took them into consideration. 

“Another point of great importance is that ever since 1873 all awards had been decided by a 

majority; but this is the first occasion where the decision was unanimous, notwithstanding the great 

interests involved and the extent of the territory at stake, the boundary which is laid down by the 

judges is a line based upon justice and law. 

“The judges have been actuated by a desire to establish a compromise in a very complicated 

question, the origin of which must be looked for at the end of the fifteenth century.” 


- 503 - 

THE VICTORY AT PARIS 

The arbitration tribunal, made up of the most competent persons available to Great Britain and 

Venezuela, that has been sitting in Paris for many weeks discussing the respective claims of Great 

Britain and Venezuela as to the just and proper boundary between the possessions of those nations 

in South America, yesterday reached a conclusion by unanimous action, thus dispensing, we assume, 

with the necessity for action by the distinguished referee accepted to render a decision in the event 

or a disagreement by the arbitrators. 

An agreement that could satisfy each side and both sides is certainly bound to be satisfactory to 

those on the outside. The Schomburgk line, the traditional and contentional lines of Great Britain 

and Venezuela, the much-talked-of aggressive and extreme lines marked by British imperialists, the 

Venezuelan line stretching back to the Essequibo River, all appear to have been abandoned as a rule 

by which the arbitrators were finally controlled in reaching a decision. Great Britain gives up 

something; Venezuela yields at points. At all events, Great Britain acts a little less than some of her 

statesmen have claimed, and Venezuela retains more than she would have saved if she had decided 

to submit her case to settlement by the sword. 

The determination of this vexed question is chiefly of importance and interest to the United 

States as an illustration of the superiority of arbitration over war as a method of settling international 

disputes. If the good offices of the United States, suggested by Secretary Olney and urged by him 

with remarkable vigor and eventual conviction upon Lord Salisbury, had been rejected or received 

with less than the grace that Great Britain accepted them, does any one doubt what would have been 

the result? 

606


It would have been a speedy case of settlement by the display and use, if it became necessary, on 

one side of a formidable navy, supported by such land forces as might be required, and on the other 

of an army that could not long contend, without foreign assistance, against its powerful, wellequipped, 

and resolute antagonist. 

Venezuela would have been constrained beyond any shadow of doubt, if she had faced this 

conflict alone, to yield all that Great Britain had claimed, and as much more, by way of indemnity 

for the expense to which Great Britain had been forced, as the victorious commander saw fit to 

demand with the conquered nation. 

With this deplorable prospect facing Venezuela, it was to good purpose that President Cleveland 

gave notice to Great Britain “that the traditional and established policy of this Government is firmly 

opposed to a forcible increase by any European power of its territorial possessions on this 

continent; that this policy is as well founded in principle as it is strongly supported by numerous 

precedents; that as a consequence the United States is bound to protest against the enlargement of 

the area of British Guiana in derogation of the rights and against the will of Venezuela; that 

considering the disparity in strength of Great Britain and Venezuela, the territorial dispute between 

them can be reasonably settled only by friendly and impartial arbitration, and that the resort to such 

arbitration should include the whole controversy, and could not be satisfied if one of the powers 

concerned is permitted to draw an arbitrary line through the territory in debate and to declare that it 

will submit to arbitration only the portion lying on one side of it.” 

This was strong language. It might have provoked a far-reaching and destructive war, as 

melancholy as it would have been destructive of life and property. 

It was fortunate for all concerned, not less for Venezuela than for the greater powers that were 

interested and likely to be more deeply involved, that it became a contest for a broad, humane, wise 

principle. 

That principle having been admitted by Great Britain as one that should control civilized nations 

in their dealings with each other, the decision to be reached by the Paris tribunal became a matter of 

small consequence, in comparison with the gratification afforded to all reasonable men in the 

consent of one of the strongest of powers to prove its right to be considered great by the 

submission of an international contention to the test of reason and justice rather than of violence. 


- 504 - 

COMMENT IN LONDON 

The Times Reflects on Gen. Harrison’s Statement— 

United States Expected to Compel Acceptance. 

LONDON, Oct. 4.—The Times this morning, referring to the award of the Anglo-Venezuelan 

Tribunal of Arbitration, says: 

“The award, on the whole, favors England, since, with trifling exceptions, which do not appear 

of material importance to us, it practically approves the Schomburgk line as the true frontier. 

England has repeatedly offered to surrender the Barima Point with a much larger slice of territory 

607

1899 – 1904 

than is now awarded if Venezuela would abandon the more preposterous portion of her general 

claim. 

“The monstrous nature of that claim is best shown by the text of the award. It included sixty 

thousand [square] miles of territory, while the award gives her about two hundred square miles of 

unsurveyed country and swamp, or very much less than any of the British Ministries whose 

proposals for a compromise she rejected were prepared to offer her out of friendly regard.” 

Proceeding to argue that the award is a moral triumph and justification of Great Britain’s justice 

and moderation, The Times expresses the hope that it will satisfy “our opponents,” and adds: 

“We must leave Mr. Harrison and M. Mallet-Prevost, if there is any truth in the attacks on the 

award attributed to them in interviews, to settle the propriety of such utterances with Justice Fuller 

and Justice Brewer, the eminent American jurists, who joined in the decision. 

“Of the good taste of their observations everybody can form his own opinion. We at least have 

no reason on other grounds to quarrel with the singular imputation they cast upon their own Judges 

when they declare: ‘If the arbitrators are unanimous it must be because a failure to agree would have 

confirmed Great Britain in the possession of even more territory.’ That assertion implies that a 

majority were ready to give England even more than she obtained.” 

The Times publishes a map and five columns from its Paris correspondent, giving a full history of 

the Venezuela dispute. 

All the morning papers express satisfaction at the award and devote much space to the subject, 

illustrated with maps. 

The Daily Mail thinks the decision neither very bad nor very good from a British standpoint, and 

says: 

“It is the usual compromise, but it is gratifying to know it is unanimous. It is the first recorded 

instance where a Judge voted against his own country. We do not doubt that the United States will 

oblige Venezuela to accept the verdict and to act fairly in any trouble that may arise regarding the 

enforcement of the decision. 

“We may feel satisfied that a possible cause of dispute with the United States is removed at a 

small cost” 

The Morning Post in an editorial refers to President Cleveland’s accusations of aggression and bad 

faith against Great Britain and the Americans’ denunciation and says: 

“Lord Salisbury is to be congratulated, but whether his forbearance is justified will be better 

known when the comments of the American Government and press on the award have been 

heard.” 

The paper expresses the opinion that the matter does not altogether justify the principle of 

arbitration, especially the intervention of third parties to impose arbitration, and concludes: 

“Before we can assent unconditionally that arbitration was the best solution we should like to 

know what arbitration and many years of discussion have cost and to compare the total with that of 

a reasonable estimate for such an expedition as could have settled the quarrel fifteen or twenty years 

ago. 

The Standard makes similar comments, but more courteously, and says: 

“Mr. Cleveland’s unmannerly intervention did not harm us, or change Anglo-American relations 

since then. Not a little is due to those American politicians who realized that Mr. Cleveland’s 

message was a mistake. The American people may rest assured that we are quite content with the 

decision, and with the means whereby which it was reached. All concerned in the arbitration are to 

be congratulated.” 

608


The Daily News says: 

“Venezuela had better have accepted Lord Aberdeen’s offer in 1884, or Lord Rosebery’s in 

18S6. It is a brilliantly successful example of the way in which nations ought to settle such 

differences. Seldom has a blessing pronounced upon peacemakers been more fully bestowed. By 

yielding on a point of dignity if not of honor Lord Salisbury has secured the lasting friendship of the 

United States, and acquired for a British colony almost everything the colonists wished to retain. 

The award is an epoch in the history of mankind, and Lord Salisbury should be congratulated both 

by his friends and opponents.” 

The Daily Chronicle regards the award as a fair compromise and says it supposes that Lord 

Salisbury will be disposed to make the best of a decision which brings a long, tedious controversy to 

an end. There is no doubt, says The Chronicle, that the award will be welcomed by the nation as a 

whole. 

The Daily Graphic says it trusts the decision will be a lesson to “tail-twisting American jingoes.” 

The Daily Telegraph thinks it will be rather difficult now to realize retrospectively the excitement 

which the subject caused three years ago, and says that “compromise, which is the essence of 

arbitration, is the keynote of the award.” 


- 505 - 

THE DISPUTE IS 400 YEARS OLD 

Character of Conflicting Claims Set Up 

—Aggressive Action by the Cleveland Administration. 

The decision of the Paris Commission has finally settled a dispute which, in some form or other, 

had been going on for four centuries, and which, by President Cleveland’s message of Dec. 17, 1895, 

became an issue for the two great English-speaking peoples that many people at the time believed 

would lead to war between the United States and Great Britain. 

The Cleveland Venezuelan message was issued on the ground that Great Britain, by 

contemplating vigorous steps against the Republic of Venezuela in attempting to enforce her 

conception of the boundary line between British Guiana and Venezuela, was transgressing the 

principle of the Monroe doctrine. The territory in dispute included the Yuruary Valley, in which gold 

mines of great richness had recently been discovered, and the possession of which, it was said, 

would go far to put Great Britain in control of the navigable mouth of the Orinoco, which plays a 

conspicuous part in the commercial and political relations of Venezuela, Colombia, and Brazil. 

In October, 1895, a sensation was caused in the United States, but only vaguely manifested in 

England, by the report that Great Britain had addressed an ultimatum to the South American 

republic demanding an apology and a money indemnity for an outrage committed the year before at 

Yuruary, within the disputed zone. Some diplomatic correspondence followed between Secretary of 

State Olney and the British Premier, Lord Salisbury, and on Dec. 17 President Cleveland submitted 

to Congress the correspondence in the case, accompanying it with a special message, which was 

considered the most striking feature of his Administration. He vigorously supported Mr. Olney in 

609

1899 – 1904 

the contention that the dispute was one for arbitration, and warned England that no arbitrary seizure 

of territory would be permitted by the United States. 

Moreover, he asked Congress for authority to appoint a commission to determine the merits of 

the ease. The authority was given, not without some hesitation on the part of the Senate, however, 

and the personnel of the commission was announced Jan. 1, 1896. The commission, which was not 

officially recognized by Great Britain, began its investigation of the case. 

On Feb. 27, 1897, the commission discontinued its sittings, as on the second of that month 

Great Britain and Venezuela had signed in Washington a treaty by which they agreed to submit the 

boundary dispute to arbitration; the Board of Arbitration to consist of two members chosen by each 

Government and a fifth to be selected by these or, in the case of disagreement, to be named by King 

Oscar of Sweden. The jurists selected to represent Venezuela were Chief Justice Fuller and Associate 

Justice Brewer of the United States Supreme Court. Great Britain’s representatives were Baron 

Russell of Killowen, Lord Chief Justice of England, and Justice Sir Richard Henn Collins. In 

December, 1897, it was announced that Prof. Martens, a distinguished Russian jurist and authority 

on constitutional and international law, had been selected as the fifth member of the commission, 

which began its work In Paris on June 15 last. 

Sir Richard Webster opened the case in behalf of Great Britain. He was assisted by Sir Robert 

Reid. Ex-President Harrison appeared for Venezuela, assisted by Gen. B. F. Tracy, ex-Secretary of 

the Navy; M. Mallet-Prevost, Secretary of President Cleveland’s Boundary Commission of 1896, and 

the Marquis de Rojas. 

Prior to 1895, England had attempted to demark her territory as follows: Late in 1840 she 

asserted her right to the Atlantic coast as far as the Orinoco delta, and in the following year Sir 

Robert Schomburgk set out the boundary line. This was protested by Venezuela, and soon after 

Schornburgk’s posts in the Orinoco region were destroyed. In 1844 Great Britain proposed a 

boundary line beginning west of the Pomaron River. The extreme British claim was made in 1881, 

when she extended a line westward to another line beginning twenty-nine miles west of the Moroco 

River, thus asserting her right to the valleys of the Pomaron and the Guiana.[sic] According to Lord 

Rosebery’s line of 1886, she claimed territory to the bank of the Guiana [sic] River. By Sanderson’s 

line of 1890 she proposed a division of territory, beginning at the junction of the Amakuru and 

Orinoco. 

And by the last Rosebery line of 1893 she proposed a conventional frontier beginning at the 

mouth of the Amakura and running so as to include the upper waters of the Cumaná, and thence to 

the sierra of Usupamo. 


- 506 - 

THE VENEZUELA ARBITRATION 

We have never entertained the expectation that the decision of the arbitrators selected by Great 

Britain and Venezuela to determine the right boundary line between the possessions of those two 

nations in South America would be entirely satisfactory to both nations. It was almost certain, in 

610


fact, from the moment that it was decided to submit the contention to arbitration that Great Britain 

would come out with so much of her pretension sustained as to cause disappointment to the 

Venezuelan hope that the line of demarkation between British Guiana and Venezuela would be 

restored to the line of the Essequibo River. 

The “compromise” arrived at by the reported unanimous action of the four arbitrators, which 

was of course agreed to by Mr. Martens, the distinguished fifth member of the board, compels the 

conclusion that Chief Justice Fuller and Associate Justice Brewer, the Americans representing 

Venezuela in the arbitration, were convinced that the claims of Venezuela for adherence to the 

Essequibo boundary line could not properly be approved. Justice Brewer was perhaps the American 

present who was best prepared to justify any stand for Venezuela that he thought should be taken 

and adhered to. 

He was a member of the American commission appointed by President Cleveland that 

investigated the case thoroughly, in order to fortify the Administration in its determination to 

support Venezuela at some serious hazard, if the records of history appeared to sustain that position. 

Of course, the counsel for both sides are more or less disappointed. This feeling is naturally less 

poignant on the British side than on the side of Venezuela, which has lost some territory that was 

hers by tradition but occupied and improved by Great Britain – through ignorance of or indifference 

to its value—by Venezuela. Venezuela gets control of the Orinoco littoral and the strategic 

command of the entrance to that river by the surrender of Point Barima by the British. Great Britain 

gets a vast area of land about which Venezuela probably knows nothing except that Great Britain 

has occupied and developed it until its discovered richness and presumed resources are coveted by 


The British press is generally gratified. Its reflections are not free from selfishness, but while 

there are occasional doubts expressed as to whether the experiment of arbitration has demonstrated 

the superiority of that method of settling grave international disputes, there is visible something 

better than a disposition to brag because arbitration was tried and Great Britain did not come out 

badly injured. British pride is sustained because Great Britain is permitted to hold so much for the 

possession of which she might have been called upon to fight two foes instead of one: and we fully 

reciprocate that form of British rejoicing that is satisfied with the result because it vastly improves 

reciprocal respect between the United States and Great Britain. 


- 507 - 

GREAT BRITAIN FARED WELL 

The Venezuelan Award Pleases the London Newspapers— 

Result of Compromise, Not Arbitration 

LONDON, Oct 4.—The award of the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration Commission is 

referred to by the afternoon papers as eminently satisfactory from the English point of view, but as 

hardly a proof of the practicability of universal arbitration. 

The Pall Maul Gazette says: 

611

1899 – 1904 

“Without doubt Great Britain has done uncommonly well, as is proved by the comments of former President 

Harrison. If it were not already sufficiently obvious, it is now made clear that the arbitration has shown the 

disposition of one Government to be pleasant and patient rather than risk a sinful and unnatural quarre1. This must 

have its impression in America, and thus must have sown good seed, which has already grown into a flourishing 

plant.” 


“The outcome is not the result of arbitration, but of friendly compromise, as stated by former President 

Harrison. We have not got all we wanted, nor all to which we are entitled; but arbitration has resulted in giving 

British Guiana an indisputable title to the northwestern district, where her future lies. 

“Every one will gladly join in the universal congratulations to the tribunal upon the happy result of difficult and 

delicate labors.” 

The Westminster Gazette says: 

“The result is decidedly satisfactory. The extreme contentions of both parties have been set aside; but the 

substantial point is that Great Britain gets more than on various occasions she had expressed herself as willing to 

concede to Venezuela. 

“The practical feature of the case is that we have substantially succeeded against Venezuela, while vastly 

improving our relations with the United States. The award and the rapidity with which it was rendered cannot fail to 

give a strong impetus to international arbitration.” 

The Globe, adopting its usual offensive tone, says: 

“For once arbitration has not operated to our disadvantage. There are others besides the Venezuelans who 

should now recognize that Great Britain will not suffer what she considers her rights to be subjected to the 

terrorism of warlike menace, whether in one part of the world or in another, whether by a great power or a small 

State.” 


- 508 - 

JUDGE BREWER’S OPINION 

Venezuela’s Arbitrator Tells How the Verdict Was Reached 

FINAL AWARD A COMPROMISE 

There Were Differences on Every Point, but No Real Casting of Votes— 

Each Conceded Something 

PARIS, Oct. 4.— From a conversation had this evening with Justice Brewer of the United States 

Supreme Court regarding the award of the Anglo-Venezuelan Arbitration Tribunal, it appears that 

the deliberations of the court did not proceed as smoothly and with the spontaneous unanimity 

which a perusal or the award would lead one to believe. Justice Brewer, in reply to a question, said: 

“Until the last moment I believed a decision would be quite impossible, and it was by the greatest conciliation 

and mutual concessions that a compromise was arrived at. If any of us had been asked to give an award, each would 

612


have given one differing in extent and character. The consequence of this was that we had to adjust our different 

views, and finally to draw a line running between what each thought right.” 

Being asked whether political considerations influenced the award the Justice said he could not 

admit that, as such an admission would reflect on the Judges, but there was no doubt that the 

present insurrection in Venezuela and the consequent feeling of instability weighed to a certain 

extent in the balance. 

In reply to an inquiry as to what questions separated the Judges. Justice Brewer replied: 

“Nearly every point. In the first place, European lawyers do not look upon the question of prior rights resulting 

from rights of discovery in the same way we do. Then, the question of the nature of control and the extent of 

influence and relationship with the native races, and many such matters are not viewed in the same manner on either 

side of the Atlantic. In fact, the whole situation is not so keenly appreciated by Europeans as it is by Americans.” 

Replying to a query regarding the deliberations within the court, Mr. Brewer said that there was, 

properly speaking, no casting of votes. Each Judge conceded something in turn. 

With regard to the proceedings in open court, he said the hearing of arguments might have been 

considerably curtailed had the case been heard exclusively by either an English or an American 

court, but the Judges thought it prudent to allow counsel full liberty in order to make matters clearer 

to the President, who, after all, was not a lawyer. 

Asked whether, according to his own opinion, Venezuela was entitled to more than she actually 

received, Justice Brewer, after some hesitation, shrugged his shoulders, and said he would rather say 

nothing on that subject, and concluded by remarking that, whatever the two parties might think of 

the award, Venezuela received Barima Point, which gives her full control of the interior of her 

country, and England is confirmed in the possession of territory, in the development of which she 

has spent considerable money and energy, but “the principal blessing is that the two nations can at 

last develop peacefully, side by side, large tracts of territory, which, owing to previous antagonisms, 

have remained unproductive.” 


- 509 - 

BENJAMIN HARRISON’S FEE 

Ex-President May Have Trouble Getting $250,000 from Venezuela. 

Special to The New-York Times 

WASHINGTON. Oct. 6.—A suggestion was made to-day of the possibility that a diplomatic 

officer of the United States might have to be employed to collect a lawyer’s fee for an ex-President 

of the United States. The situation, it was admitted, would be unprecedented if it presented itself, 

but is not thought likely that it will. 

The fee involved, so it is reported, is $250,000, promised by the present Venezuelan 

Government to Benjamin Harrison for his service as legal counsel of the Venezuela Republic before 

613

1899 – 1904 

the Paris Arbitration Commission. It was suggested that in the event of the triumph of the 

insurrectionists in Venezuela, now almost at the gates of the capital city, Caracas, the obligation of 

the preceding administration might be repudiated, inasmuch as the benefits derived by Venezuela 

from the award are doubtful. 

In this case State Department officials are of the opinion that the debt would be regarded as one 

of honor, partly on account of Mr. Harrison’s high position as the former Chief Executive of the 

Republic whose good offices were alone responsible for averting war and securing arbitration to 

Venezuela. The obligation is none the less binding, it is urged, because the question was only 

considered during Harrison’s and won during Cleveland’s Administration. 


- 510 - 

VENEZUELA AND ALASKA 

We look upon the submission to arbitration of the Venezuela boundary dispute as a victory for 

us in which the immediate parties to the contention and the rest of the civilized world ought to be 

glad to participate. According to the decision at Paris, a line has been drawn between the extremes 

of the two contentions. Both sides are bound to accept this conclusion without appeal or official 

criticism. In the United States it must be accepted as a just determination, by a court for which we 

were largely responsible, of a question that menaced the peace of nations. To be courageously 

consistent, it may be urged that, having exerted great pressure upon Great Britain to submit this 

matter to arbitration, we cannot refuse to comply with a similar request by Great Britain that we 

submit to arbitration the Alaska boundary dispute. 

We have .not yet reached the stage of negotiations in which our authorities consider it imperative 

that arbitration need to be invoked in this case. Our rights on the mainland for thirty miles from the 

coast—“clear National rights,” they are called by Prof. J. B. Moore, in an article on the subject in the 

current North American Review—are demonstrated without the intervention of arbitrators, and 

probably will be settled by simple, direct negotiation. But we should be bound, having advocated the 

principle of arbitration for other nations, to accept it for the determination of this controversy if it 

should reach a stage so critical as to menace the peace of the two leading nations urging arbitration 

as a wiser t means of adjusting differences than the older and more brutal method of war. 


- 511 - 

CONCESSION TO VENEZUELA 

British Counsel Says It Is of No Value, 

as Barima Point and Coast Will Vanish in a Few Decades 

LONDON, Oct. 7.—George Askwith, junior counsel for Great Britain before the Anglo- 

Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration Tribunal, reviewing the history of the arbitration in The Speaker 

614


today, maintains that the decision benefits Great Britain and the cause of the arbitration in general. 

He says: 

“The territorial sovereignty over Barima Point and the whole coastline granted to Venezuela will 

probably vanish in three or four decades, owing to the inroads of the sea upon the sandbanks and 

mud.” 


- 512 - 

BRITAIN PRAISES ARBITRATORS 

Venezuela Commission’s Work Contrasted 

with the Delagoa Bay Tribunals 

Special to The New-York Times. 

LONDON, Oct 7.—The Venezuelan arbitrators have received many compliments in the British 

press. The result is considered a compromise, but is accepted as proving that if arbitration is to be a 

success the tribunal must be composed of distinguished men, the majority of whom should be 

practical lawyers. 

The work of the commission is contrasted favorably with that of the Delagoa Bay arbitration, 

and the Swiss are blamed for dilatory action. 


- 513 - 

VENEZUELA IS SATISFIED 

President and the Press Pleased with the Boundary Awards 

THE VALUE OF BARIMA POINT 

Its Possession Said to be of Great Advantage to the Republic 

by the Intelligent Classes 

CARACAS, Venezuela. Oct. 7.—The award of the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Arbitration 

Tribunal has been received here with satisfaction. The intelligent classes consider that the possession 

of Barima Point will prove of great advantage to Venezuela. 

In the course of an interview today, President Andrade said: 

“The result is a cause of rejoicing for this country, because justice and the laws of the civilized 

world have restored a portion of usurped territory, and demonstrated the soundness of our claim.” 

The newspapers universally welcome the award. 


615

1899 – 1904 

- 514 - 

HONOR FOR BRITISH JURISTS 

Banquet Is Given Representatives in the Venezuela Arbitration 

LONDON, Dec. 11.—The Royal Societies Club gave a banquet this evening to Lord Chief 

Justice Russell and Sir Richard Henn Collins, Lord Justice of Appeal, who were Great Britain’s 

representatives in the arbitration of the Anglo-Venezuelan boundary dispute. The company, which 

included all the chief members of the English bench, was large and very distinguished. 

Sir Clements Robert Markham, President of the Royal Geographical Society, who presided, 

proposed the toast of the evening, “The British Members of the Anglo-Venezuelan Arbitration 

Commission. In the course of his remarks, he said the results of the arbitration had fully justified the 

work of Schomburghk. 

Baron Russell of Killowen, responding, alluded, to the interesting character of the labors of the 

tribunal and pointed out that Spain, although possessing some of the qualities of a great nation, had 

failed as a colonizing power because she had relied upon fire and sword instead of upon equal 

before the 

After expressing his regret at the absence from the banquet of Justice Fuller and Associate 

Justice Brewer of the United States Supreme Court, he paid a high tribute to their ability, as well as 

to the erudition, knowledge of international law, and judicial spirit displayed by Prof. de Maartens, 

who presided over the tribunal’s deliberations. 

“Great Britain and Venezuela,” said Lord Russell in concluding, “have obtained all which they 

were respectively entitled. There is no question that the result is a triumph for arbitration; and it is 

especially important as proving the possibility of settling disputes without bloodshed or leaving a 

heritage of hatred.” 


- 515 - 

Brazil Objects to Venezuela Award 

RIO JANEIRO. Dec. 13.—The Government of Brazil will officially protest against the award of 

the Arbitration Tribunal at Paris of part of the frontier between the Cotinga and Takutu Rivers, 

which territory, it is said, belongs to Brazil, and was not included in the protocols establishing the 

tribunal which arbitrated the British-Venezuelan questions. 


- 516 - 

IN FOREIGN LANDS 

616


THE LAST PHASE OF THE VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY DISPUTE.—Advises from 

Georgetown, British Guiana, show that the Commissioners appointed by British Guiana and the 

Republic of Venezuela to limit the boundary in accordance with the terms of the award of the Paris 

Arbitration Tribunal have begun work. The Venezuelan Commissioners recently joined the Guiana 

Commissioners in Georgetown. After being hospitably received and entertained by the Acting 

Governor, Sir Cavendish Boyle, they departed for Point Playa – the point on the coast that marks 

the boundary between the two countries – the Commissioners for British Guiana having left 

Georgetown a few days previously. 

The British Commissioners are M. McTurk, C.M.G.; H. I. Perkins, Capt. Baker, and and Dr. 

Widdip. The Venezuelan Commissioners, numbering eight, are: Engineering Chief – a Señor Felipe 

Aguenevere; First Assistant Engineer – Señor Santiago Aguenevere; Second Assistant Engineer – 

Señor Abraham Tirabo; Legal Adviser – Dr. Trino Celis Rios; Physician – Dr. Elias Toro; Engineer 

Draughtsman – Señor Lorenzo Mallecco Osio; Engineer’ Secretary- Señor José Maria Idarro Cerezo; 

Interpreter – Señor Gustav E. Michelena. 

The boundary will be fixed right up to Dutch Guiana without prejudice, however, to the claim of 

Brazil, with which a boundary dispute is pending. It is believed that the work of fixing the boundary 

will be a difficult and dangerous task on account of the nature of the ground and the risks of the 

climate, and the Commissioners do not expect that they can complete their work until 1902. 


- 517 - 

MR. CLEVELAND’S PRINCETON LECTURE 

Ex-President Discusses the Venezuelan Boundary Trouble 

Received with Loud Cheers by the Student Body— 

Many Prominent Persons Present 

Ex-President Grover Cleveland delivered last night, at Alexander Hall, Princeton University, the 

first of two lectures on the national boundary dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela, which 

dispute involved the boundary line separating Venezuela from the British colony of British Guiana. 

These lectures, like Mr. Cleveland’s address of last year, are given in the course founded by Henry 

Stafford Little. 

Prof. Woodrow Wilson in a brief and fitting speech introduced the speaker. As Mr. Cleveland 

arose to begin his lecture he was greeted with three long, loud cheers from the student body. He was 

strongly applauded several times while delivering the lecture. A number of prominent people from 

Trenton, New York, and Philadelphia were in attendance. 

Mr. Cleveland at the outset spoke of the vagueness on the subject of boundary lines in the 

establishment both of the Venezuelan Republic and of British Guiana. He said that from the first 

there was evident need of “extraneous assistance” before bounds so loosely named could be “exactly 

fixed.” He then referred to the initiation of the dispute in 1841 between the Venezuelan Minister to 

Great Britain and Lord Aberdeen, Chief Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The making of the 

Schomburgk survey and its bearing upon the dispute were fully explained. The lecturer said: 

617

1899 – 1904 

“In 1896, thirty-two years after the discontinuance of efforts on the part of Great Britain and 

Venezuela to fix by agreement a line which should divide their possessions, Venezuela was 

confronted, upon the renewal of negotiations for that purpose, by the following conditions: 

“A line proposed by her, founded upon her conception of strict right, which her powerful 

opponent had insisted could not in any way be plausibly supported, and which therefore she would 

in no event accept. 

An indefiniteness in the limits claimed by Great Britain, so great that of two boundary lines 

indicated or suggested by her one had been plainly declared to be merely a preliminary measure open 

to future discussion between the Governments of Great Britain and Venezuela, and the other was 

distinctly claimed to be based upon generous concessions and a desire to avoid all cause of serious 

controversies between the two countries. 

“A controversy growing out of this situation impossible or friendly settlement except by such 

arrangement and accommodation as would be satisfactory to Great Britain, or by a submission of 

the dispute to arbitration. 

“A constant danger of such an extension of settlements in the disputed territory as would 

necessarily complicate the situation and furnish a convenient pretext for the refusal of any 

concession respecting the lands containing such settlements. 

“A continual profession on the part of Great Britain of her present readiness to make 

benevolent concessions, and of her willingness to co-operate in a speedy adjustment while not 

substantially reducing her pretensions, and certainly not attempting in a conspicuous manner to 

hasten negotiations to a conclusion. 

“A tremendous disparity in power and strength between Venezuela and her adversary, which 

gave her no hope, in case the extremity of force or war was reached, of defending her territory or 

preventing its annexation to the possessions of Great Britain. 

It was in 1876 that Venezuela appealed to the United States, begging our Government to give 

the subject its kind consideration and take an interest in having due justice done to Venezuela. 

“This,” said the lecturer, “appears to be the first communication addressed to our Government on 

the subject of a controversy in which we afterward became very seriously concerned.” 

The lecturer, quoting constantly from documents, showed the repeated appeals of Venezuela to 

Great Britain in favor of settling the question by arbitration on the whole subject, declaring that 

their constitution prevented them from making grants of territories except by a process the result of 

arbitration. 

Meantime England constantly refused arbitration on the general subject, declaring that it feared 

the Venezuelan constitution would still be used as a pretext for disobedience to an award. Great 

Britain also objected to the arbitration requested by Venezuela, fearing that an award might be made 

in favor of the Venezuelan claim, in which case “an important territory which has for a long period 

been inhabited and occupied by her Majesty’s subjects and treated as part of the colony of British 

Guiana would be severed from the Queen’s dominions.” 

On this Mr. Cleveland said: “England alone had treated it as part of British Guiana: her immense 

power had enabled her to do this, and her own decrees seemed to promise greater advantages 

against her weak adversary than arbitration could possibly assure.” 

The British Government at one time offered a plan of arbitration which did not cover the entire 

disputed territory, but never consented to arbitration such as proposed by Venezuela, and which 

would include the entire territory in dispute. The lecturer last night brought down with much detail 

the narrative to September, 1893. At the end of the lecture, Mr. Cleveland said: 

618


“Here closed a period in this dispute, fifty-two years in duration, vexed with agitation, and 

perturbed by irritating and repeated failures to reach a peaceful adjustment. Instead of progress in 

the direction of a settlement of their boundaries, the contestants could only contemplate, as results 

of their action, increased obstacles to fair discussion, intensified feelings of injury, extended assertion 

of title, ruthless appropriation of the territory in controversy, and an unhealed breach in diplomatic 

relations. 

Mr. Cleveland’s second and concluding lecture on the subject to be given to-night, will deal 

principally with the part taken by the United States in the settlement of the long controversy which 

resulted in arbitration and a fixed boundary line. 

[28 March 1901] 

- 518 - 

BRITAIN WINS ARBITRATION 

Gets Award Against Brazil in the Guiana Frontier Case 

ROME, June 15.—The award of the King of Italy in the Anglo-Brazilian arbitration regarding 

the frontier of British Guiana, which was handed to the British Ambassador and to the Brazilian 

Minister here yesterday, is in favor of Great Britain. 

The decision consists of a preamble, followed by the award delimiting the boundary. The 

preamble says that it cannot be admitted that Portugal or Brazil obtained possession of the disputed 

territory, while Holland first and Great Britain afterward did establish effective rights of sovereignty 

over certain portions only. As the rights of Brazil and Great Britain in those zones cannot be 

precisely fixed, it has been decided to divide the territory according to a line drawn by nature. 

The award is as follows: 

The frontier is determined by a line starting from Mount Kakontipu and continuing easterly along the 

watershed to the source or the River Ireng to the confluence of the Tacutu, following the course of the Tacutu to 

where it joins the line of the frontier established by the declaration attached to the treaty of arbitration on Nov. 6, 

1901. 

By virtue of that declaration all the zone in dispute east of the line of the frontier will belong to Great Britain, 

and all the part west will belong to Brazil. The Rivers Ireng and Tacutu will remain open to free navigation of both 

States. 

[16 June 1904] 

619

1899 – 1904 

620

The British Guiana-Venezuela Border Dispute - Guyana News and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?